Template talk:Disused rail start

Trains: in UK Template‑class

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 articles

Template

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Convert to using S-rail-templates[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please edit the template to use the {{s-rail templates? See Sandbox-version. Tholme (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I checked a dozen semi-random pages that transclude this template, and they all look fine. Ping me from here if you find a situation that is broken by this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disused railways[edit]

It is an unwarranted assumption that a disused railway station is on a disused railway. The header of the central section "Disused railways" is incorrect for disused stations on lines that are currently in use. I suggest that it be changed to "Original railways". Relevant examples: Clapham Common, Stewarts Lane railway stations; the companies that built them are long gone, but the lines they stood on are still in use.

(Why is "railways" in the plural? I do realise it is because of {{s-rail}}, not this template, but can anything be done to make it singular?) -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbarson: We have {{Disused rail start}}/{{Disused Rail Insert}} for the pre-grouping owner/operator of closed lines, and {{Historical Rail Start}}/{{Historical Rail Insert}} to show the pre-grouping owner/operator of lines that are still in use. We don't need more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the Historical... versions. They fit the case. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]