Template talk:Navbox Carriages

Linking to pages

Hi Ed, I was was wondering whether it would be a good idea to have the header for each row (e.g. Barns) as a link to the appropriate page (as per this navbox over at wikipedia)? -- RedDragon (Send me a telegram) 11:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I considered doing this when I made it but the Barns row is about the only it would apply for. I initially considered having more seperate rows (eg Bowsider, Carnforth etc.) but decided the box would become too long so combined the carriages into the categories you see (this also made it easier to include unique carriages that don't fit into any particular "class" of carriage). I included the links in the bottom row to make up for the fact that they weren't on the left hand side. It would be possible to make some of the entries on the left links but I felt it was more consistent to have all the "class" links on the bottom row. Eheaps (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's a bit crowded at the bottom - the links to the modern carriages are important. Perhaps link classes without a page to the appropriate part of the FR carriage page would be best: see the version in my sandbox. RedDragon (Send me a telegram) 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I quite like your version, the links to sections on the main carriage pages are a good idea. I'm slightly worried about the overall length of the box, but it's not too bad. It also annoys me that the blue column is no longer the same width all the way down, but there may be a work around for that... Eheaps (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that it is unlikely that any of these pages are likely to gain any more navboxes, I don't think the length is too much of an issue for now - perhaps something to be considered in the future if navboxes become more prevalent on the wiki. I agree with the column width being irritating: shall we change the navbox to the version in my sandbox and you could try and find a workaround? RedDragon (Send me a telegram) 10:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and change to your version. I would suggest one change: "Vans and mess cars" should link to FR Carriages#Service stock. I'll have a look at the column spacing later...

As for future navboxes I might do a signalling one, and possibly wagons (although a more comprehensive review of the wagon pages might be needed before that!), it's unlikely any page should ever end up with two navboxes though. Eheaps (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made the switch. However, I'm not sure that FR Carriages#Service stock is the most appropriate link for the category. However, I can't find a page which includes every carriage listed; I will work on that a bit later. RedDragon (Send me a telegram) 13:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There won't be a page as it's a combined list of F&WHR non-passenger vehicles that are listed in a number of seperate places. Possibly Vans 1 (1955), 6 & 7 could go in the 4 wheelers section but that type of van is mainly used on goods/works trains so I thought they made more sense where they are. Eheaps (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys - looking at the template, the way to solve the column width issue is to give both the child Navboxes the parameter | groupwidth=xxem where xx is a number. Having played with it a bit I think 16em looks about right. Hope that's clear --Peter Harrison (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! I went with a width of 190px. Eheaps (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)