Template talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

California: San Francisco Bay Area

	California portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This template is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Proposed stations

how long is considered appropriate to keep "proposed" stations listed on the template? they're linked from elsewhere, but not a lot of active work seems to have been done on things like Calaveras station.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk • contribs)

We really do need to slim down this massive Calaveras and Livermore seem pretty unlikely to go anywhere. Irvington might be worth keeping since it had environmental work last year - but it should be under the expansion subheading to reduce the template height. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Livermore, my understanding is that there is no longer any plan to extend BART beyond (East) Dublin/Pleasanton station and that rail travel east of that station would be part of Valley Link. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added overcolored template

I've added the overcolored template. Because Wikipedia defaults to not underlining links, WCAG accessibility requires that link text color has to have a 3:1 contrast ratio with non-link text. And both simultaneously have to have a 4.5:1 contrast ratio with the background. This is impossible to achieve with that bright blue BART theme color. It would be best to remove it. Thisisnotatest (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest I agree it would be best to remove the background color. We're locked in to the black for contrast, but we're also using black (or blue) for links. The inconsistency between the main navbox and the child navboxes is another issue, but even resolving that we have contrast problems. Paging @Pi.1415926535 for his input. Side issue: I'm surprised link underlining isn't the default; do you known when that was last discussed? Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: I have no objection to defaulting to the standard navbox colors, particularly for the child navboxes. For the title, would it be possible to keep the existing background color, but surround the text itself with an appropriately padded white background? Alternately, I would suggest above/below colored bands like {{Navbox ice hockey}} uses. Either of those should make the template accessible while maintaining the color for identification. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]