Standardization for the Wiki

[Kevin L]

The issue has been brought up recently about better standardization for the Wiki. These are some items that are being discussed:

• Details chart - What columns should be included on all pages, Should there be a status column or not?
  
• Should bullets only belong in the notes column when there's two or more points?
  
• Infoboxes and navigation templates, etc. should have rounded corners and be in the agency's colours?
  
• Any other things that should be standardized?
  

I decided to make a post to get some consensus and replies from the others on the board.

[vivablue5215]

In my opinion...

Details chart:

- For individual transit systems, it should include the following: Fleet number, thumbnail, Year, Manufacturer, Model, Engine, Transmission, Destination Sign, Seating, Division (if applicable), Notes.

- For individual fleet series, it should have engine, transmission, seating, and destination sign at the top. The bottom would have Fleet Number, Date, VIN, License Plate, Paint (if applicable), Division (if applicable), Status, and Notes. I generally do not support having a thumbnail column for the individual fleet numbers, unless something outstanding stands out from the bus, which by that means you can link via the notes section. Notes should have bullets, and IMO should not include details such as delivery dates.

For routes, in this order:

- First paragraph should explain the route name and transit system.

- Under route details, next paragraph should identify where it serves (important corridors, communities, attractions, etc. I use the community maps in city websites to identify ones I did for GRT). Next paragraph should identify if the route does not operate at a certain time where normally service would still operate in a city of such size (eg: Route does not operate Sundays, route does not operate past 5pm, etc.)

- Under history, add only significant events like route formation, routing changes, or scheduling changes (e.g: Sunday service added).

- List the branches, and if any branches does not operate/only operates at a certain time, state it.

- In terms of vehicles used, put that in the box to the right. The route infobox should list the route name, types of vehicles used, division, and if possible the weekday ridership.

[Articulated]

I'll copy my PM about standardization below as it contains my POV on the issue. These are primarily for the Bus Roster pages.

• I think the small table at the tops of pages that displays info about all the buses (Engine, Transmission, Dest. Sign, Seating) is a great thing to have, because this info is mentioned on the page for the system but not on the actual page for them, so having this in with all roster pages would be good.
  
• Details chart is very unstandardized and there's a few different formats based on who created the table. I really don't like columns that are basically "checkmarks"; for example, a column dedicated solely to noting whether a particular unit has a radio or a bike rack, stuff like that. It may be somewhat useful during installation, but it just takes up space and looks unprofessional IMO when every unit has one. A sentence in the preamble would probably suffice.
  
• I'm also not a fan of the "Status" column, partially for the same reason as above. Retired buses can be marked with a grey background and RETIRED with the date of retirement below (with a horizontal line separating from the rest of the notes section), and this seems to work well.
  (EDIT: The page for Welland Transit 121-125 is IMO a very good example of why a Status column listing retirement details is a bad idea; this sort of goes against Kevin's idea of the status column being used to 'relieve' the Notes column.)
  
• License Plates for many pages have two categories, a Current and Former; this kind of adds to the clutter especially since probably 90% of units with this layout have nothing in the Former category. I've adopted putting former plates in brackets () all in one License Plate column.
  
• An example of a page I find works quite well in this regard is Toronto Transit Commission 6210-6293.
  

Two more smaller points, not necessarily restricted to the Bus Roster pages:

• Bullets should only belong in the notes column when there's two or more points; there's no need to have a bullet when it's the only point in the cell!
  
• Infoboxes and navigation templates and the like should have rounded corners and be in the agency's colours just to promote standardization between everything (plus it also looks nicer!). A while ago I compiled the colour codes for a bunch of agencies, they're on my old username's page here.
  

- For individual fleet series, it should have engine, transmission, seating, and destination sign at the top. The bottom would have Fleet Number, Date, VIN, License Plate, Paint (if applicable), Division (if applicable), Status, and Notes. I generally do not support having a thumbnail column for the individual fleet numbers, unless something outstanding stands out from the bus, which by that means you can link via the notes section. Notes should have bullets, and IMO should not include details such as delivery dates.

I am in favour of the top chart (Engine, Transmission, Seating, Destination Sign) and would like to see this expanded to all other Bus Roster pages. However, I wish to see the Thumbnail column kept in place, and as mentioned I would prefer to remove the Status column.

As for vehicle delivery dates, I think it's important information to remain on the Wiki, but I agree that the notes column probably isn't the best location for it. I don't know where else it should go, as I'm not in favour of another two columns in the detail charts for this.

For routes, in this order:

- First paragraph should explain the route name and transit system.

- Under route details, next paragraph should identify where it serves (important corridors, communities, attractions, etc. I use the community maps in city websites to identify ones I did for GRT). Next paragraph should identify if the route does not operate at a certain time where normally service would still operate in a city of such size (eg: Route does not operate Sundays, route does not operate past 5pm, etc.)

- Under history, add only significant events like route formation, routing changes, or scheduling changes (e.g: Sunday service added).

- List the branches, and if any branches does not operate/only operates at a certain time, state it.

- In terms of vehicles used, put that in the box to the right. The route infobox should list the route name, types of vehicles used, division, and if possible the weekday ridership.

Ridership seems irrelevant at this point... a major problem with this is that it needs to be constantly updated, and as the YRT pages have shown it's near impossible to keep them updated on a regular basis. Otherwise I agree with the mentioned points on route pages.

[new.flyer.408]

In my opinion, the listing of bus accidents in the details column of a bus roster page is useless because we'd never have a full list of accidents. And if we did, it'd make the page unnecessarily long.

[Orion VIII]

Ridership seems irrelevant at this point... a major problem with this is that it needs to be constantly updated, and as the YRT pages have shown it's near impossible to keep them updated on a regular basis. Otherwise I agree with the mentioned points on route pages.

I agree, and there are some systems that do not collect and others that don't release ridership data, in addition to the point of making it too labour-intensive.

In my opinion, the listing of bus accidents in the details column of a bus roster page is useless because we'd never have a full list of accidents. And if we did, it'd make the page unnecessarily long.

If it's so useless, then how are we to explain why a bus was out of service for x period, or why it recieved a new paint scheme years before the rest of its group, or why it looks different than the rest?

[Articulated]

If it's so useless, then how are we to explain why a bus was out of service for x period, or why it recieved a new paint scheme years before the rest of its group, or why it looks different than the rest?

I'm in favour of keeping major accidents/fires on the Wiki, but details such as "hit a mirror on x date" or other minor collisions should be left off the Wiki.

Collisions involving a major repaint should mention the collision as a subset of the repaint: "Black front numbers due to a collision in May 2010" should be preferred over "Involved in a collision in May 2010" and "Black front numbers" points.

Maybe a non-strict guideline of approx. 1 year out of service due to the collision, and/or events that caused significant media attention (the recent collision of TTC 7461 for example).

[BCT-3122-D800-10240]

In my opinion, the listing of bus accidents in the details column of a bus roster page is useless because we'd never have a full list of accidents. And if we did, it'd make the page unnecessarily long.

Agreed. But I believe bus accidents can be added in if they are major and the bus has been written off and scrapped as a result.

[MVTArider]

In my opinion...

Details chart:

- For individual transit systems, it should include the following: Fleet number, thumbnail, Year, Manufacturer, Model, Engine, Transmission, Destination Sign, Seating, Division (if applicable), Notes.

---

I agree with that, except I don't think dest. sign should be a standard column for a couple reasons:

- We may not always know what type of sign is used for any of the fleet (I can't ID the brand unless I see the controls)

- Some TAs will have the same exact sign on all their units, so it gets redundant. For example with the MVTA roster I just added the sign type in a note at the bottom of the current roster table: http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=M...ansit_Authority

- With the insistence lately on adding every single transit operator to the state lists, many of the smaller ones who only operate GPDAR won't even have dest. signs.

Now I have a few questions myself regarding the wiki formats and standardization:

• What about the headers for different sections on a page? My method has been Overview of agency = underline, Routes (if not included in Overview) = Underline, Fleet = Underline, Current Roster = Bold, Retired Roster = Bold. I've also seen, and probably even wrote a few as, Current Roster = Underline, Retired roster = Underline, etc.
• Speaking of rosters, lists, fleets, what should they be called? I like Fleet = Underline, then Current Roster as a section and Retired Roster as a section, or All Time Roster as a section. I know this can vary somewhat in wording however. Since the rosters are the main point I think it needs some standard format and wording.
• Similar/same names, for example "Metro Transit" is the proper name for Metro Transit, Metro Transit, and Metro Transit to name a few. Problem I see is page titles are supposed to be the proper name of the system, so technically the title for this one should be "Metro Transit", not "Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Transit. How about "Metro Transit (Minneapolis - St. Paul, MN)" instead?

EDIT: Also I just want to say this is not a complaint about what anyone has done by any means, I really appreciate all the work everyone has put into the wiki over the years And IMO it's better to have a slight mix of page styles and good info, than to have every single page formatted to perfection and everyone thinking it's just too much bother to edit anything.

[vivablue5215]

I also want to see for transit systems with many routes, that the route listing be made into an infobox at the bottom of the home page.

The YRT page is a good example, while the GO Transit page is a bad example. It basically wastes up space if you're scrolling for info other than routes.

[Articulated]

I agree with that, except I don't think dest. sign should be a standard column for a couple reasons:

- We may not always know what type of sign is used for any of the fleet (I can't ID the brand unless I see the controls)

- Some TAs will have the same exact sign on all their units, so it gets redundant. For example with the MVTA roster I just added the sign type in a note at the bottom of the current roster table: http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=M...ansit_Authority

- With the insistence lately on adding every single transit operator to the state lists, many of the smaller ones who only operate GPDAR won't even have dest. signs.

Most large transit systems operate multiple types of destination signs and even a number of smaller ones that have fleets stretching back into the 1990s will likely have non-LED signs. If the number of columns are becoming a serious issue then the destination sign information can be moved to individual bus pages and listed in the small first chart (containing engine, transmission, seating and dest. sign). My concern with this is that if it's a small or little-visited agency where we won't know the destination signs then we probably won't be having individual pages for the fleet roster.

Now I have a few questions myself regarding the wiki formats and standardization:

• What about the headers for different sections on a page? My method has been Overview of agency = underline, Routes (if not included in Overview) = Underline, Fleet = Underline, Current Roster = Bold, Retired Roster = Bold. I've also seen, and probably even wrote a few as, Current Roster = Underline, Retired roster = Underline, etc.
• Speaking of rosters, lists, fleets, what should they be called? I like Fleet = Underline, then Current Roster as a section and Retired Roster as a section, or All Time Roster as a section. I know this can vary somewhat in wording however. Since the rosters are the main point I think it needs some standard format and wording.

IMO Overview of Agency serves as the first paragraph and doesn't require a separate header, otherwise I agree with your first method. Fleet then subsections Current Roster/Retired Roster or subsection All-Time Roster I'm in preference of, although personally I'd like to get away from using All-Time Rosters especially if the agency is still active.

EDIT: Also I just want to say this is not a complaint about what anyone has done by any means, I really appreciate all the work everyone has put into the wiki over the years And IMO it's better to have a slight mix of page styles and good info, than to have every single page formatted to perfection and everyone thinking it's just too much bother to edit anything.

I doubt we will ever have a full set of rigid standards, as there's too many differences and exceptions between every agency. I think the purpose of standardization is just to have a common guideline to formatting making it easier for readers to identify information. I don't think that everything needs to be exactly cookie-cutter but some common elements about styling would probably go a long way in tying everything together.

I also want to see for transit systems with many routes, that the route listing be made into an infobox at the bottom of the home page.

The YRT page is a good example, while the GO Transit page is a bad example. It basically wastes up space if you're scrolling for info other than routes.

A number of agencies without dedicated local editors (I'm looking mainly towards major US agencies since we are primarily Canadian-based) may not have individual route pages so just gathering the route numbers in a template would be rather useless. Another point is that the vast number of agencies do not have templates, and many smaller agencies would have a limited use for templates.

[M.Wright]

The issue has been brought up recently about better standardization for the Wiki. These are some items that are being discussed:

• Details chart - What columns should be included on all pages, Should there be a status column or not?
• Should bullets only belong in the notes column when there's two or more points?
• Infoboxes and navigation templates, etc. should have rounded corners and be in the agency's colours?
• Any other things that should be standardized?

I decided to make a post to get some consensus and replies from the others on the board.

WARNING: The following post is extremely long, but it would be in your own interest to read every word.

For the infoboxes and navigation templates, rounded corners is useless for Internet Explorer users, they do not show anyway. I never knew we had rounded corners until I just got my new computer and it came with Google Chrome. I don't know if Firefox is the same case but Internet Explorer is quite square.

As for them being in the agencies colours, I thought all of them were already, as I have yet to see one that isn't. Mind you I don't venture very often out of the Ontario/Quebec sections, but everyone that I've seen is. But if we are talking about like route pages for example, since OC and may other systems use colour coded routes, those infoboxes for the route page should be the colour of the route. This emphasizes the purpose of the route, like green routes in Ottawa denote express routes, and red routes denote peak period routes.

But I do not think we should use this scheme for the systems that just colour their route different colours on the system map to keep them seperate (like Mississauga or YRT). Only if the colour actually has a meaning that can display the purpose of the route.

As for all the rest, I don't really have any opinion on them. I'm good for whatever you guys decide on. I was planning on standardizing the OC detail charts as they vary per page, so I will hold off on that until this matter is decided on.

But I must say, each system does vary as has been mentioned already in this thread, so we can try to standardize the wiki as much as possible, it will never be standard though as figures like ridership for routes or division information is not readily available at all systems, as those figures are not available at OC Transpo and a bus barely stays at the same division for a long time. As we short our buses by types, not fleet numbers. They don't care about the fleet number, as long as we have a specific amount of a specific type of bus at each garage. The fleet also gets moved around quite frequently because of broken down buses, like when Merivale has a bus that breaks down, they send it to St. Laurent to be repaired, and in return, take a good bus from St. Laurent. When the bus gets fixed, it will most likely run out of St. Laurent for a while (a while at OC can range from a month to the rest of it's life at OC Transpo) and then get returned to Merivale eventually. The bus from Merivale could even be taken to Pinecrest because Pinecrest had a bus break down and St. Laurent gave Pinecrest the bus from Merivale. So our fleet get transferred quite frequently.

In fact, our fleet was supposed to be transferred every day as in September 2010, we tried running runs that for example, started at Industrial, and finished at Merivale. This was intended to be a ways to transfer the fleet around without having to deadhead them from garage to garage. This proved to be a failure however since the operators then needed to be transported back to the originating garage to get to their car. If this was intended to save fuel, well it ended up burning more since the transporting of the operators had to be daily, transferring buses was only once in a while.

So really the point I am trying to make is all these figures will vary by system. We will never standardize the wiki as TTC may have that information, but OC Transpo won't, due to the frequent changes or the fact that they don't calculate ridership by route (for example). However we do need to bring standardization into the system, as there is lots of pages at OC that aren't standardized and I am trying to correct that but I cannot do it in one day.

As putting a "Division" column would make sense in the TTC section but it makes no sense in the OC Transpo section.

Really I don't think there is any need for Standardization for the wiki as a whole as it is good as it is, we just need to standardize the individual transit systems since the variety in each section is unbelievable, as I mentioned with my OC Transpo example, since pages in there especially had different standards, now I am trying to make them standard. A good example of this that I have not touched yet is Barrhaven Centre Transitway Station, as that is in a complete different format from the rest of the Transitway Network, I plan to resolve that soon as I am working on the Transitway Stations, but I will leave Barrhaven Centre to show as a example for now until this standardization review is complete.

The TTC Subway Stations was a good example. Bloor-Yonge had a different Info box from the rest, and Christie had none at all, but I made a standard infobox for all of the subway according to how the other TTC Templates were styled. This is a good example of needed standardization.

---------------------

The Important Part:

Also we REALLY need to complete pages on the wiki, I would think that would be more of a priority over "Standardization", since all the other systems other then OC Transpo (the Rural Park & Rides lots do not count since I just added those, it's going to take time to finish them) have a bunch of missing pages, like TTC is missing the majority of it's subway stations, Montreal is missing all of their metro stations and a bunch of routes, YRT is missing most VIVA stations, Mississauga is missing quite a bunch of routes, and so on. This should be our priority vs talking about standardization that I need no point in doing. Instead we should be talking about actually completing the wiki, as that is more likely to happen.

I have been trying to complete pages and bring some standardization to a transit system but someone who Private Messaged me, didn't like what I was doing, so for now I will be sticking in the Ottawa Area. It is especially hard to complete pages when you lack the knowledge of a specific station or route. All I must say to that person as they know who they are, is that this is a Wiki after all, and "Please note that all contributions to CPTDB Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.". Don't take that as insult or a personal attack, I am just reminding you of the message that is displayed every time before you hit the "Save page" button.

I just see all this talk as useless, we should have set standards by Transit System instead.

I for one, am still motivated to complete the wiki, but if this is seriously what we are talking about vs talking about how we plan to complete the wiki, then I will probably not be motivated for long. It doesn't seem many others are motivated to complete or even update the wiki, so someone has to take that role. We NEED to complete the wiki, it's not an easy project, but if we work together, we can complete every page. Then it's easy to just update it as required once everything is complete. In fact I am even working on stuff relating to the wiki as I am typing this as I am working on stuff for our Transitway Stations in Ottawa. Examples of what I am working on can be found at any of the Albert/Slater Stations since I have completed those first. That is how motivated I am to complete this. I would like to see who ever initiated this review of standards start pulling their weight as sometimes I feel I am the only wiki editor since no one else seems to do anything. Logs prove this.

Considering I have spent almost most of my free time towards updating the wiki, I feel VERY offended that we aren't talking about completing the wiki instead of this nonsense. Hence this really long post. Longest post I have ever made. I should of spent most of this time doing homework but instead I was dedicating it to the wiki though this weekend I might dedicate it to catching up on work. This is just how motivated I am to get something done.

------------

One thing we can standardize, and I have done a example of this in the Greater Toronto Area, is by displaying connecting transit systems, as I have also done for the OC Transpo/STO templates as well. I did an extensive version of this on the Toronto Area since sometimes when in the template, you want to go to the other systems but without these, you needed to go back into the master page of transit systems and go find the one you were looking for. This makes navigation easier between systems. So far from the people I have asked, they like what I have done in the Greater Toronto Area.

Reason why I put Greater Toronto Area on the TTC, DRT, YRT, MT, and BT is because someone might want to go from the Mississauga page to the Durham page without really having to navigate through the TTC page. But the rest I have just done connections (Minus GRT and Barrie since I got tired of adding connecting systems at that point, it's not easy) since they connect to the systems. If you want to go from Oakville to Durham, use the master page. Or navigate through GO Transit's connecting services.

Wow this is a long post, I think it is the longest one I have ever done.

I also want to see for transit systems with many routes, that the route listing be made into an infobox at the bottom of the home page.

The YRT page is a good example, while the GO Transit page is a bad example. It basically wastes up space if you're scrolling for info other than routes.

I too, do agree on this, as that GO template should be a GO template not a GO Fleet template. You could also divide them up into sections similar to what we did in the Ottawa section, as since our system is easy to divide up since our numbers actually have a meaning. But this not possible for systems like the TTC where their numbers do not have a meaning.

A number of agencies without dedicated local editors (I'm looking mainly towards major US agencies since we are primarily Canadian-based) may not have individual route pages so just gathering the route numbers in a template would be rather useless. Another point is that the vast number of agencies do not have templates, and many smaller agencies would have a limited use for templates.

As I mentioned in my post, you should really check out Montreal and Mississauga, and almost every other system. Lots of Canadian systems lack individual route pages, but doesn't mean we can't make a template for them to show which pages are missing.

As for small systems. Every system has a "Garage", "Fleet" and "Routes". There is 3 sections for a template. So as small as the system could be, it could only have 1 route, 1 bus, and 1 small garage, it could still have a template. As most smaller transit systems only consist of those three sections anyway. So any system could use a template. Doesn't matter how small they are.

[Articulated]

For the infoboxes and navigation templates, rounded corners is useless for Internet Explorer users, they do not show anyway. I never knew we had rounded corners until I just got my new computer and it came with Google Chrome. I don't know if Firefox is the same case but Internet Explorer is quite square.

As for them being in the agencies colours, I thought all of them were already, as I have yet to see one that isn't. Mind you I don't venture very often out of the Ontario/Quebec sections, but everyone that I've seen is. But if we are talking about like route pages for example, since OC and may other systems use colour coded routes, those infoboxes for the route page should be the colour of the route. This emphasizes the purpose of the route, like green routes in Ottawa denote express routes, and red routes denote peak period routes.

But I do not think we should use this scheme for the systems that just colour their route different colours on the system map to keep them seperate (like Mississauga or YRT). Only if the colour actually has a meaning that can display the purpose of the route.

I use Firefox and corners are rounded. I was wondering why you kept making square corner templates... now I know why. Anyway, the rounded corner templates still display identically to square (non-rounded) templates in Internet Explorer. The main reason I'm using them is just because they look nicer - a bit more refined, and who says we can't have nice looking stuff? If you need help adding rounded corners Mike, just PM me and I can help.

Agency colours was a project initiated by me, and the only reason most templates on the Wiki are coloured as such is because I've gone through and added agency colours. In 2010 I went through most agency logos I could find on the wiki and compiled them in a chart on my (former) User page so if we can stick to using those (and adding any that don't currently exist) that would be best.

The Important Part:

Also we REALLY need to complete pages on the wiki, I would think that would be more of a priority over "Standardization", since all the other systems other then OC Transpo (the Rural Park & Rides lots do not count since I just added those, it's going to take time to finish them) have a bunch of missing pages, like TTC is missing the majority of it's subway stations, Montreal is missing all of their metro stations and a bunch of routes, YRT is missing most VIVA stations, Mississauga is missing quite a bunch of routes, and so on. This should be our priority vs talking about standardization that I need no point in doing. Instead we should be talking about actually completing the wiki, as that is more likely to happen.

Standardization will aid in the completion of the Wiki which you seem to be striving towards. I will bring up the example of the GO Station pages: all the stations on the Milton and Georgetown lines had pages created with only the name of the station and its address, as well as the navigation template. These are not complete pages. However, I've created a standard design for GO Station pages which I'm now going through and applying station by station; I've now completed 5 of 7 lines. Having a standard design will help in having pages completed, because people will have a set design that they can follow and input all the information to make it a complete page. With no standard, anyone can add any amount of information they wish, and we will have a hodgepodge of semi-complete pages.

As well, without a set of standards, how will you know if a page is "complete"?

I just see all this talk as useless, we should have set standards by Transit System instead.

I for one, am still motivated to complete the wiki, but if this is seriously what we are talking about vs talking about how we plan to complete the wiki, then I will probably not be motivated for long. It doesn't seem many others are motivated to complete or even update the wiki, so someone has to take that role. We NEED to complete the wiki, it's not an easy project, but if we work together, we can complete every page. Then it's easy to just update it as required once everything is complete. In fact I am even working on stuff relating to the wiki as I am typing this as I am working on stuff for our Transitway Stations in Ottawa. Examples of what I am working on can be found at any of the Albert/Slater Stations since I have completed those first. That is how motivated I am to complete this. I would like to see who ever initiated this review of standards start pulling their weight as sometimes I feel I am the only wiki editor since no one else seems to do anything. Logs prove this.

Considering I have spent almost most of my free time towards updating the wiki, I feel VERY offended that we aren't talking about completing the wiki instead of this nonsense. Hence this really long post. Longest post I have ever made. I should of spent most of this time doing homework but instead I was dedicating it to the wiki though this weekend I might dedicate it to catching up on work. This is just how motivated I am to get something done.

I initially PM'd Kevin L about trying to get some better standards, so technically it was me who initiated this. I'm taking this as a personal attack because if you look at my contribution logs, you will see that I have been extremely busy editing the Wiki and helping to complete pages. Between my two user accounts, I've made 3,768 edits to the Wiki. Maybe you don't see most of my edits because I take the time to carefully preview and make larger updates working on a series of different improvements, instead of groups of smaller edits that create walls in the 'Recent Changes' page. I also have a life outside of the wiki so I update when I can, and that is not every day. I've done more to ensuring both completion and standardization than the vast majority of users and editors. So please, don't brag on about saying how you're the only person doing work on the Wiki, because you're not, and all it does is insult the other users who do contribute and get a lot of work done.

I too, do agree on this, as that GO template should be a GO template not a GO Fleet template. You could also divide them up into sections similar to what we did in the Ottawa section, as since our system is easy to divide up since our numbers actually have a meaning. But this not possible for systems like the TTC where their numbers do not have a meaning.

The GO template was divided up because when it was together it was a very large size and took up significant space on the Wiki. In addition, there are not many people who want to go to the page for Mount Joy GO Station from the fleet page for buses 2440-2449. Both GO templates have the same styling and links to the main GO Transit page, where you can access any GO page you want. As a counter to your point, the OC Transpo template, when it has all of its parts (which you've moved away from in practice, contrary to what you're suggesting here) is absolutely huge and cumbersome - you can't easily find the information you're looking for on it.

There is a type of coding that allows for tabbed templates that I've seen on other Wikis that I would love to implement here and would help solve the problems of both chunky templates and not having all the information - unfortunately the current Wiki software does not allow for any sort of advanced coding so unless there's an update to a more modern version then it is not possible to try here.

[M.Wright]

Good post to completely avoid all the major points I made about each system being completely different. Thanks for that.

I initially PM'd Kevin L about trying to get some better standards, so technically it was me who initiated this. I'm taking this as a personal attack because if you look at my contribution logs, you will see that I have been extremely busy editing the Wiki and helping to complete pages. Between my two user accounts, I've made 3,768 edits to the Wiki. Maybe you don't see most of my edits because I take the time to carefully preview and make larger updates working on a series of different improvements, instead of groups of smaller edits that create walls in the 'Recent Changes' page. I also have a life outside of the wiki so I update when I can, and that is not every day. I've done more to ensuring both completion and standardization than the vast majority of users and editors. So please, don't brag on about saying how you're the only person doing work on the Wiki, because you're not, and all it does is insult the other users who do contribute and get a lot of work done.

Excuse me? Nothing much (I won't say just nothing since some stuff was done) was being done on the wiki before I started "Messing with it" as your PM stated. I have had lots of people come up to me privately and tell me what a great job I have been doing. It was even mentioned on the H4 Subway Charter which you happened to be nearby when this was stated, that the wiki was in "Massive need of an update". You only started bring up these issues once I finally took a role since I got tired of this nothing being done.

I would be more then happy if other users would actively participate in updating the wiki. In fact I would like to encourage that, but threads like these won't help.

And also seems like members who "pissed you off" in the past get suspensions for no reason, as there are a few examples of this, I am not afraid of that. I just thought I would let you know. In the end, stuff like this is exactly what kills the wiki.

May I remind you: "Please note that all contributions to CPTDB Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

---------------------

On another topic, I know your responsible for the YRT pages, and I would like to know if this information on the VIVA Purple is still relevant considering VIVA has removed the hubcaps from the LFX's.

Nova Bus LFXes are banned from Viva Purple due to the platform curb height at Warden VivaStation interfering with the hubcaps along the wheels.

I have been wondering this for a while as of now.

EDIT: Just found out apparently the platform height has also been lowered, but there is apparently still a ban in place despite the two issues being resolved, but this should be mentioned on the wiki along the lines of something like "The platform curb height at Warden has since then been lowered and the hubcaps removed, but there is still a ban in place for LFXs on Viva Purple."

This line btw was added by Mirokulol at 04:31, 1 April 2011.

[A. Wong]

I didn't read every line in this thread, but wanted to speak to the "completeness" of sections. I think this is impossible to do, as things are always changing. Yes it would be nice to have pages for every route, station, etc. but you need:

1. to actually create the pages (this takes a ton of time)

2. updates if you want to keep it up-to-date (though having the pages is nice for history's sake too)

As everyone contributes to the Wiki, the pages become more and more complete.

The Wiki as a whole covers such a wide variety of transit-related topics that it is never going to be actually "complete".

---

M. Wright - You're absolutely right in saying it's not an easy project, and we need to work together.

---

Let's keep the discussion here friendly.

[vivablue5215]

This line btw was added by Mirokulol at 04:31, 1 April 2011.

That was the initial case, but as you said the platform height has been lowered. LFXes still don't go on Purple though in order to consolidate all the resources to Newmarket Division (but the RHC cover is a Newmarket bus, and is sometimes a LFX. If shit happens on Purple, then LFXes can be deployed there).

[D40LF]

This Kingston page does not fit with most other pages on the wiki IMO (Sorry John)

http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Kingston_Transit

When I set up the Kingston page that was a proposed standard as it would make it easier to read through the roster instead of looking for a bus under several different sections. I personally think that the Kingston page is how things should be for smaller systems.

When I was a wiki moderator I tried to standardize things to make the wiki better but got so much s**t as backlash that I left the board for awhile. Now I constantly see the same issues being raised again and again that I tried to address years ago.

[M.Wright]

 

 

That was the initial case, but as you said the platform height has been lowered. LFXes still don't go on Purple though in order to consolidate all the resources to Newmarket Division (but the RHC cover is a Newmarket bus, and is sometimes a LFX. If shit happens on Purple, then LFXes can be deployed there).

Alright, just was curious about that.

[MVTArider]

Another log to throw in the fire here,

I tried a little experiment with using logos instead of words/abbreviations for the bus manufacturer: http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=M...Authority#Fleet what do you think? I'm not sure I even like it myself. Mainly it's an idea I've had for a while, if staying with the regular method is preferred that's fine by me and I'll change it back.

[A. Wong]

I'm going to say no for a couple of reasons... I commend you for the effort! But this is making it too complex for a data source, and definitely brings it away from the goal of standardization.

- cannot search for it by text anymore (eg. you can't just search for the text word 'Gillig' or 'Blue Bird' on that page)

- corporate logos usually have usage guidelines, and that probably doesn't meet them

- don't really know if we should have corporate logos on the Wiki in the first place for the previous reason

- if anywhere, the corporate logo should appear on the company's page and not on individual transit agencies. Only logo on a transit agency's page should be of the transit agency and its related services.

[MVTArider]

Thanks for the feedback, and very good points I changed it back to the regular version again. I guess another issue would also be having logos for some makes but not others, which would definitely look messy.

[A. Wong]

No worries, thanks for that! Yes you bring up another good point.

[2044]

There seems to be two ways of differentiating systems with the full state name or abreviation. I think the full city name should be used. Anyone else have thoughts?

[A. Wong]

Can you provide an example of what you mean? I prefer abbreviation when listing a company under bus model, eg. "Golden Arrow - Edmonton, AB" on the J4500 page.

I see merit in using the full state name if it is a page title though, for example.

I think maybe some more Template pages could be used...

For example I like "Fleet Roster" better than "All-Time Roster".

[2044]

I menat in the page title. For example, some pages abreviate the state name (ie. Island Transit), some have the full state name, and others have the city name (ie. Metro Transit). I personally have a preference for the city name used in the tittle.

[A. Wong]

Looks like Kevin L has been changing them, as it used to be city name. Let's see if we can get his attention here.