Standardization Vote - Details section of individual fleet series pages

[Kevin L]

Vote on the format for the Details section as seen in this sample page

[MVTArider]

Assuming this standard is adopted, can we please have some sort of official fleet series template page with the code and directions for filling in those columns? The few times I have added a fleet series page I've just copied code for a table from another fleet series page with whatever transitfan heavy system I could think of at the time. (TTC, LA Metro, etc.) If there was an official example page to go to though it would be much simpler.

[Kevin L]

Assuming this standard is adopted, can we please have some sort of official fleet series template page with the code and directions for filling in those columns? The few times I have added a fleet series page I've just copied code for a table from another fleet series page with whatever transitfan heavy system I could think of at the time. (TTC, LA Metro, etc.) If there was an official example page to go to though it would be much simpler.

That's my intention. It would become a how to page after the voting.

[D40LF]

No need to have the red font and the shading to show retired, they both mean the same thing.

[Kevin L]

No need to have the red font and the shading to show retired, they both mean the same thing.

Yes, but with a page of retired and active units it provides an easy way to identify which ones are retired/not active.

[D40LF]

Yes, but with a page of retired and active units it provides an easy way to identify which ones are retired/not active.

Thats what the shading does, and with the shading do we need the RETIRED?

[OC Transpo 8238]

I like having both- just my $0.02

[Kevin L]

Thats what the shading does, and with the shading do we need the RETIRED?

Still keep the retired in black or just shaded with an explanation of what the shading means?

[D40LF]

Still keep the retired in black or just shaded with an explanation of what the shading means?

Do you mean an explanation like this?

http://cptdb.ca/wiki..._Transit_roster

or on an individual page

http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Kingston_Transit_9803-9810

If so then yes, it should be on every page.

[Kevin L]

Do you mean an explanation like this?

http://cptdb.ca/wiki..._Transit_roster

or on an individual page

http://cptdb.ca/wiki...ansit_9803-9810

If so then yes, it should be on every page.

Individual page

[Articulated]

In the Kingston Transit 9803-9810 example page D40LF is demonstrating, the word "Retired" is already listed in the notes section for every unit. All that would be changed is the formatting of that one word, so I don't see what point your argument has.

15 of the 16 voters are approving of the new format, and through the numerous other Standardization threads/conversations member D40LF is the only one that seems to constantly disagree with this formatting. I see no reason why we can't have both, and at some point compromises need to be made. I've purposely not argued with the formatting of the license plates solely to move on and develop one firm standard that's agreeable to everyone. Kevin L has done a great job taking common aspects from the various stylings currently across the Wiki pages and making some good compromises to develop this format, and it's shown with the high voter approval rate.

I like MVTArider's suggestion in creating a template, perhaps {{r}} (r for roster), which can have the formatting in the back end, and will help ease the implementation and standardization of the new format (since every page will use the same template and formatting).

[D40LF]

In the Kingston Transit 9803-9810 example page D40LF is demonstrating, the word "Retired" is already listed in the notes section for every unit. All that would be changed is the formatting of that one word, so I don't see what point your argument has.

Because as there is shading to indicate that the unit is retired we don't need to have the word 'RETIRED' highlighted in red too, it is not needed and in my opinion looks amateurish. However we can't just put a date in without indicated what it means, unless we add a column titled 'Retired', or 'Retirement Date'.

The standard that was previously agreed upon was the shading, not RETIRED which is therefore non standard.

[Kevin L]

However we can't just put a date in without indicated what it means, unless we add a column titled 'Retired', or 'Retirement Date'.

Instead of the Status column on the semi-retired and retired pages, perhaps have this column suggested above replace Status? Thoughts?? Would be a bit more accurate title and column.

[T6H-5307N]

And now the standard is being discussed with a view to a change. Which if it is changed, will be standard. Sorry if the new standards fail to meet your standards

And you people wonder why many of us no longer contribution photo's as the "standards police" have taken the pleasure out of things. I for one am not prepared to be second guessed nor edited nor deleted. You've reaped what you've sown

Well said! I agree that this has gotten way out of hand. I'm all for standardization, but I'm sick and tired of having every friggin edit corrected because the capital letter is in the wrong place or there's an extra space or period. It's a miracle anyone even bothers editing the wiki anymore with the attrocious amout of policing that goes on.

But no big deal. If some admin wants to go and manually correct thousands of pages to make them adhere to their arbitrary standards, I pity them for sinking that much time into it.

[awstott]

Why cram everyone into the same box? Each system does not run exactly the same as another. Let the pages be unique. Let the people that are adding the content for that section decide what works for them. It's a community effort, not a dictatorship.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

[Kevin L]

Why cram everyone into the same box? Each system does not run exactly the same as another. Let the pages be unique. Let the people that are adding the content for that section decide what works for them. It's a community effort, not a dictatorship.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

The way I see it as long as the basics are there, I'm fine with adding anything else that's useful and relevant for someone reading it.

[A. Wong]

Let's not get caught up on semantics here... "standardization" does not translate to "all pages must look like this and ONLY this".

There are a ton of pages that have additional formatting/columns - this is an attempt to ensure pages have a minimal amount of useful information and consistent formatting. As an example, this page looks very nice, but there is no way that we can make every single active fleet page on the Wiki look like this, nor would it work for every page.

Editing for minor details is welcome, as we want accurate information. If there is an extra space or period, of course it should be edited. You shouldn't see flaws like that on any published material for a reason.

[T6H-5307N]

Let's not get caught up on semantics here... "standardization" does not translate to "all pages must look like this and ONLY this".

There are a ton of pages that have additional formatting/columns - this is an attempt to ensure pages have a minimal amount of useful information and consistent formatting. As an example, this page looks very nice, but there is no way that we can make every single active fleet page on the Wiki look like this, nor would it work for every page.

Editing for minor details is welcome, as we want accurate information. If there is an extra space or period, of course it should be edited. You shouldn't see flaws like that on any published material for a reason.

Once again, well said! Keeping that in mind, if a page's formatting differs slightly from the standard, is there really any point in correcting it? I think that the most important thing is that the formatting is consistent on an individual page basis; as long as the formatting is consistent on any given page, it shouldn't matter if it isn't an exact match to some other random page.

What I really don't want to see is a whole bunch of nit-picky corrections. For example, the user who decided to change every instance of "retired" on a page to "Retired" (with capital R) was entirely unnecessary; the formatting was already consistent (all non-capitalized Rs).

[OC Transpo 8238]

Should the date of retirement go under "RETIRED" in the status column or in the notes section?

[Kevin L]

Results - Yes wins for all three questions

Should the date of retirement go under "RETIRED" in the status column or in the notes section?

Status (ie Retired in June 2013)