As an editor who isn't involved with route diagrams, and only very infrequently has anything to do with them, I have to say neither the old style nor the new style is that user-friendly. Surely there can be a more user-friendly way of making RDTs, except perhaps the most complex ones. What I imagine is a template that can be used like:
@Evad37: So what you're proposing is to create a wrapper for a single row of {{Routemap}} (which would allow editors to ignore the underlying syntax)? It seems like a good idea, especially for wider templates; this could feasibly be done for the BSn and BSn-2 templates, so that they could get the performance benefits of Routemap without having any syntax changes. (It would be a bit different for the collapsible and {{BS-colspan}} templates though.) As for doing it entirely with named parameters… might be better to leave at least the icons with the usual numbered parmeters. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a wrapper so there isn't more syntax to learn, which adds complexity.
I haven't really looked much at BSn and BSn-2 templates, but that may well be feasible.
I think named parameters would be clearer, especially in matching overlays to the icons they go over (but in any case, parameter aliasing is easy enough to do).
Yes, I was aware that there are a lot of route icons, and I still think that they all should be renamed (although success here is not likely). Pppery (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As Usedennim mentioned, renaming proposals need to be on Commons, as that's where the files are located. (But in any case, what would you renamed them to? With so many different language version Wikipedias using the same icons, it seems doubtful that any other sort of code or filename could more meaningful in more languages than the current codes) - Evad37[talk]17:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You have a point, Evad37. I missed that the files were on commons and thus needed to have multi-lingual names. However, it would still make sense to create a bunch of file redirects locally (do local redirects to commons files even work?) with descriptive English names and then use those instead of the IDs. Pppery (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
French WP's local redirect of the icon causes localization of their diagrams to other Wikimedia sister projects a HELL. I also don't think any Commons admin would tolerate redirects of over 6000 files for each language on Commons. The design of RDT icon codes and the templates is aimed at streamlining the markup size. Expanding/exploding the template to raw wiki/html markups does not make the diagram easier to understand, it is just as terrible to editor's eyes because of monstrously greater page byte size. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pppery: In regards to your reply on my comment under Support 1: if this is a major change (e.g. change the number of slots in a line), this can be resolved by replacing that line of Routemap-markup with a new line of subst'ed BS-markup. Otherwise, you can simply change the images in the slots using similar notation as in the BS-template (e.g. if you want to change uSTR to uSTRg, you can do this:
{{BS|uSTR||This is uSTR}}
{{BS|uSTRg||Now it's uSTRg}}
(Sorry for the inconvenience in replying down here, I don't know how to reply using {{routemap}} in the actual comment, which requires a line-break that breaks the actual comment.) -- epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The number of icons in the row is determined by the highest numbered parameter. Empty parameters are counted.
The usual limitations regarding mixing unnamed (|) and numbered (|5=) parameters apply.
Sidebar text parameters – |L1= to |L4= and |R1= to |R4= – are numbered from the centre outwards (main text is 2).
Unlimited overlays, keeping the idiosyncrasies of the BSn templates' parameter names.
Routemap-style text in the icon cells is still *arbitrary text, as I couldn't think of an intuitive parameter name which wouldn't be confusing (there's already the sidebar text).
Most parameters only modify the display of text in the cells; if you don't wanna use them you only need to care about |bg= and its variations.
Row parameters: |bg=, |align=, |color=, |b=, |i= and others (see {{Routemap}} documentation).
Cell (overlay stack) parameters: |n-bg=, |n-abbr=, etc.
Icon (part of a stack) parameters: |On-align= (second item), |On0-align= (base item), |On2-align= (third item), etc.
Template is substitutable to create the usual Routemap formatting, not sure how to convert current Routemap formatting to this template yet.
Hope this helps. ({{RDTr}} currently uses Module:Routemap/sandbox; the main template hasn't been updated yet.) I'll probably be leaving this area of the project for a while due to real-life commitments, but will still be semi-active. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It did, just busy. This looks like the right approach to me, and I hope it resolves the issue. Any time we can merge a bunch of complicated templates into one system it's usually a good thing, but can take time (e.g. I merged the functionality of all 7 linear table of contents templates into what is now {{Compact ToC}}, but it took something like a year to deploy it in place of all the original templates, which are all just hazy memories now). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean this one? Yes, it did. What I want is to be able to build RDTs the same way that I have been doing for seven years without having to learn new methods, particularly methods that bear no relation whatsoever to established template markup, RDT or otherwise. I'm no RDT part-timer either: just look at the icons that I created. Would I have created them if I didn't care about RDTs? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: In what way, aside from the use of named parameters (which you could stick anywhere you like), is the structure of the template that I spent several hours to make almost entirely for yourplural ease of use fundamentally different from those of the BSrow-based templates? (If you really want to do it the old way there's |n=, which forces the number of icons.) There's definitely a reason for disliking the {{Routemap}}code, but it's a bit hard to see your dislike as anything but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Think of it this way: We currently have two different ways of making RDTs; one of them is more flexible, is more easily updated (all the code is in one place), is compatible with itself, and has a much higher tolerance for the number of rows it can handle. It's not going to go away anytime soon, so we may as well make it the one that everyone uses. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I would say you are correct, in most cases; however, it seems to simply be shortcut from the talk page. I personally don't see a strong need to put it on every railway's talk page, but obviously some editors think it's important enough to do so. Useddenim (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Did I write that? Looking at the history it seems that I did, but don't ask me the motives for something I did nearly 10 years ago! Probably it seemed like a good idea at the time. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to implement. The next step would appear to be further discussion with the volunteers who edit such things (concerning user-friendliness, for example). - jc3718:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In July 2011, the {{BS-map}}-plus-{{Railway line header}} method of creating RDTs was deprecated in favour of using {{BS-map}}, which eliminated most of the need for using table formatting. Or something like that. I wasn't a Wikipedia editor at the time.
Last August, Sameboat transwikied Routemap over to the English Wikipedia after it was implemented on the Russian and Chinese Wikipedias. This was met with immediate opposition from a few longtime editors who disliked Routemap's syntax (which uses \ instead of | to separate icons, and ~~ instead of | to distinguish text). The pursuant RfC ended with the closing comment:
There is consensus for the conversion. The majority opinion cites easier syntax and that larger diagrams are possible. As a side note there are negative comments on the documentation. This might be a good place to focus first if improvements have not already been done. — User:AlbinoFerret 14:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the de facto consensus is that if a {{BS-map}} diagram was previously edited by either of those aforementioned editors, it can't be converted to Routemap unless it breaks the servers and stops the page from loading.
I can't think of a good sentence to segue into the !voting portion, so here it is below. If you have any particular concerns or questions about either the RfC or Routemap, it'd help to address them in the discussion section below. —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
1. Converting all diagrams regardless of format
Just to clarify the position of the previous RfC (I and others have tried to improve the Routemap documentation, for what it's worth), should all diagrams be converted – regardless of what their previous editors think – to Routemap? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This was originally the third question, but I moved it up so that the order makes more sense. I guess anyone who supports this implicitly supports all the other A options. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Support, on the basis that the templates are redundant, we eliminate redundant templates, and we should use and retain the better (more efficient, more features) template. If people have an issue with the syntax of it, that can be resolved on its talk page, and a bot can be used to adjust the parameters of already-deployed instances. Tech note: The lowest-impact way to do this is to temporarily fork the template to a copy, change all instances to the copy, update the syntax of the "real" one, then replace the deployed instances calling the old-syntax copy to call the new version with the updated syntax, then finally delete the copy with the old syntax. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I'd imagine we'd have problems changing the Routemap syntax, since it was widely implemented on the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias two years ago. The wrapper option in the discussion (working on it) is probably more realistic. —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 02:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. I have no trouble divorcing the underlying cross-wiki codebase in Lua from what editors want to type in an article to make it work. We take this same approach with the WP:CS1 citation templates, which have a simple (though voluminous) set of plain-English parameters resting atop a multi-layered snarl of code to handle the complexities of various conflicting citation scenarios and even codified styles (Vancouver, Harvard, etc., and even the WP:CS2 templates are now processed by the same code on the back end, with everyday editors none the wiser). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: The point about CS1 is that people can still use {{cite book |last=Smith |first=John |title=The Book |year=2016 |page=123 }} and it still works regardless of anything that changes in the underlying templates or modules. People don't need to learn a whole new syntax. If somebody has gone to an article and altered {{cite web}} or {{citation}} to {{cite book}} (or the other way around), the parameters are the same, the next editor doesn't need to learn a whole new way of doing it. This is not the case with {{routemap}} conversions, see this edit, where (for example) the line
If an RDT is altered to use {{routemap}}, the next person that comes along and wants to add a station can only do so if they understand that rather odd syntax, which AFAIK is used nowhere else. It's limiting RDT maintenance to a small group, defeating the "anyone can edit" philosophy. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the proposals of a template wrapper just mentioned above a way around this? The fact that we have redundant templates means they should merge. It doesn't mean that they must be merged in one set-in-stone way, nor that it has to be done this afternoon. If it takes a while to produce a deploy-in-articles template with more familiar syntax, that uses the cross-wiki code as a meta-template, that would seem adequate. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Support. I find it odd that Redrose64 and Pppery (who doesn't appear to have edited an RDT before this whole debate began) complain about the syntax of {{Routemap}}, when the rules for {{BS-map}} are just as arcane (and possibly less-forgiving, to boot). Admittedly, the documentation for {{Routemap}} leaves something to be desired, but that’s easy to fix. Useddenim (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Support because {{Routemap}} uses fewer templates (1 to be exact) while {{Bs-map}} can run in excess of 100+ templates. So basically, it reduces template load. However, I would STRONGLY suggest that all {{Bs-n}} templates can be kept so, if needed, one can subst the old template syntax into the newer one (thus eliminating all the concerns the opponents bring up). epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Keeping the old templates but making them subst-only wrappers to the new ones does nothing to address my concern when one is editing existing RDTs. Pppery19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1B. Oppose
Oppose With the non-{{routemap}} format, everything is written in Wikimarkup, it's not difficult to pick up for somebody that is new to RDTs, especially if they've handled templates before. The syntax of {{routemap}} is AFAIK unique to that template, we must not expect people to have to learn a whole new system of markup when this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Converting an RDT to {{routemap}} excludes those who do not understand (or do not have the time to learn) its syntax. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Unless the template size limit is exceeded, then diagrams should not be converted. Creation of diagrams in BSmap or Routemap should be the creator's choice with neither being mandated. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The whole system for these templates is already far too arcane with each shape being given a completely meaningless id, and it shouldn't be made even more so. Pppery (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The choices for "1. Converting all diagrams regardless of format" are essentially "1A. Support" or "1B. Oppose". Putting qualifiers in parenthesis creates a loaded question, and I ignored them. My oppose stands. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the qualifiers. The heading was "1B. Oppose (individual editors should choose, possibly except in the case of the other options below)" when the above comment was made. Pppery20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Should diagrams using the deprecated format be converted to {{Routemap}}, or should they be converted to whatever the person converting the diagrams thinks is best? (It's been five years, and there are still almost as many of them (5731) as there are BS-map uses (6164). We could use a bot or AWB.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - BStable is not deprecated, except by those supporting Routemap. BStable works fine, Routemap is much harder to edit. Leave alone I say! Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I opposed in section 1 also. My thoughts on this are well known and haven't changed. This from an editor who created a complicated diagram using routemap because BSmap would have broke the template size limit. This is the only area where I can see a use for routemap, but I won't seek to stop editors creating new diagrams using routemap if that is their choice. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
3. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a double-sidebar layout
In Routemap, to add a left sidebar to a diagram, all that happens is that ! ! (which replaces one pair of tildes) is added to the left of a row and the text from the right is re-added in a mirror image. In the older templates, -2 is added to the subtemplate name on each row, three of the sidebar text cells are missing (I honestly have no idea why that happened), and the order of the text becomes left-right-left-right-right. To be a little less neutral, it's weird and confusing for newer editors.
Should double-sided templates be converted without prior discussion, or should it be left to the previous editors to decide if it's done? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Support per my previous comments. The oppose comment below, that use of the double-sided template is an indication that excessive information needs to be pared down, is not logically an argument in support of retaining the overly complicated template variant. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Support either A or B. I like A better because it is not only the templates with missing text fields that should be converted; it should be all templates converted to be consistent. But again, see {{BSn-2}} around so it can be substed. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
3B. Support (for double-sided templates which need the missing text fields)
Oppose If you need to go from text on one side to text on both sides, it's an indication that the RDT is on the large side, perhaps too complicated, and could possibly be trimmed down. Remember that the extra text columns increases the overall width, and we don't all have super-wide screens - the article's prose text is going to be crammed into a space on the left. The problems will be exacerbated if more text columns are added to an RDT that is already double-sided. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The paragraph above was to illustrate the complexity of the BSn2 series of templates, not a literal description of how double-sidebar diagrams are actually made. Please forgive my limited imagination. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose None of these advantages you are stating for double-sidebars overcome my oppose of option 1, arguing that the routemap syntax is too arcane. Pppery18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
4. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a collapsible section
Because Google Chrome uses dynamic table width and particularly affecting RDT with collapsible section, each collapsible table row must be given a width value to fixate the cell width. This is how Routemap has fixed this issue. For legacy BS row template, the startCollapsible row templates need to add the table width parameter which is currently not available, and then every BS row templates in the diagram must be given the identical table width value to do the trick (unlike what the documentation currently states that only 1 row per diagram requires the table width value, this does not work in Chrome). This is extremely counter-productive because every time you need to change the table width value, you need to update the value in every single BS row template in that diagram. In order to overcome this trouble with the traditional wiki template parameters, the whole structure of the BS row templates have to be changed drastically and the usage of all legacy diagrams has to be converted as well, similar to the scale of conversion from {{Railway line header}} to {{BS-map}}. We are not going through this again knowing the performance of legacy BS row templates is inferior to Routemap. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
4A. Support
Support per above; we do not retain redundant templates, per standard WP:TFD procedure. We especially do not need any malfunctional ones. Chrome support cannot be ignored, since it's the majority browser on most platforms. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Currently, because there are about two people who maintain the documentation, most of WP:RDT only refers to {{BS-map}}, while anyone interested in Routemap is directed to the Routemap page. Should the part of the Routemap documentation pertaining to the diagram code and BS-map conversion (essentially, all of it except the TemplateData) be incorporated into WP:RDT? (It's not that important, but since this RFC already had three questions, I figured: why not?) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Support, though be smart about it. See the documentation of Template:Glossary, et al., for how to maintain centralized documentation but collapse-box parts of it not immediately needed when looking at a specific template in a series, while making it all available because the templates have to work together. Another, more complex case is how the documentation of the WP:CS1 citation templates is managed; it's actually generated by Lua scripting that assembles it on a per-template basis from a collection of documentation snippets. But I wouldn't go the latter route without good reason. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Expanded, 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose the reason this page exists is because the {{BS-map}}-based system uses many templates, meaning that the documentation does not make sense on any of those templates' doc pages. No such issue exists with {{routemap}}, so {{routemap/doc}} is the correct place to put {{routemap}}'s documentation. Pppery (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC discussion
I know that it's a dick move, to whoever strongly opposes Routemap: If you fancy any new function introduced to Routemap and you want it implemented back to the legacy version, you are on your own. Not to mention that the more severe issue with the broken collapsible section in Google Chrome by legacy BS-startCollapsible templates which has been fixed in Routemap. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I say keep them in article space. I agree that they're not standard articles, but in effect can be considered equivalent to lists, in that they have a blurb, followed by a table of information, though in this case the information is graphical rather than textual. With regard to Template:Railway line legend, it's been suggested in the past that it be moved to Help:Railway line legend. Maybe it's time to reconsider that idea. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run: Okay then; both considering them lists and moving the legend templates to the Help namespace seem like good ideas to me. I'll ask over on Wikidata if the property could be allowed for lists. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me09:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(pinging Epicgenius and Useddenim) Should single-use station layouts (such as the one at the top of Kowloon Tong Station) be in the Template namespace, or is it fine for the code to be in the article? (In addition, that diagram is probably in the wrong place in the article. Should it be in the infobox or in § Station layout?) —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me09:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel it should be kept in the article. Not only will the other option create templates that are only used in one article, it would also add to the article's template load. It is also unnecessary, as the code in the article works just fine.It's fine for the track maps to be in the infobox. That's how it was on the zhwiki version. I put them in the station layout section because it was easier. I copied the layout of one of the articles, Central Station (MTR), that had the track map in the "station layout" section. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I think for some articles this would make the infobox unnecessarily wide, although not everyone might care about that. Most of the (properly-formatted) ones I've seen on zhwiki have been in the infobox, although the whole wiki's font size is smaller and the station names are much narrower so width isn't as much of a problem. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put the wider track layouts on the left side of the page, rather than on the right side next to the infobox. For these layouts, it may be better to leave them out of the infobox. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Route diagram location
It's a good idea to keep a railway's route diagram in a separate page, so it doesn't clutter the textual content of the relevant article. I see some articles follow this idea by putting a route diagram page into the Template namespace.
I'd suggest to make it a slightly different way for 2 reasons: (1) I would rather have something put into the Template namespace that could be re-used in more than one article (hence it is called "Template"), (2) I think it's better to associate a diagram itself with the main article somehow.
A subpage of the main article's page seems for me quite suitable from this purpose. This is what we actually implemented at some other wiki (for example Mediterranean and Mediterranean/imagemap).
We don't use subpages in main article space: / is used only where it appears in the article name (e.g. AC/DC). Having a route diagram as a separate article can be done, e.g West Coast Main Line diagram, when there is consensus to do so, but it should be an article in its own right. In the case of the West Coast Main Line, there is a simpler diagram in the main article. I do not think there would be any benefit from removing route diagrams from artciles completely. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vadp: It used to be too big before it was changed to use the {{Routemap}} format, and it's also a little too detailed for most readers who might not need to know about every junction which the line has. I've requested that your diagram be restored in the Template namespace. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me10:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Thanks for converting the diagram. Just out of curiosity -- did you use some tool for your magic or rather just some mere regex substitutions? --Vadp (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vadp: I just copy the core of the diagram (everything between |map= and the final }}) into a text editor, then change every instance of ¶{{BS to ¶{{subst:BS. Useddenim (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any issues with the catalogue pages being moved to Commons? As well as facilitating a rearrangement of the pages so they don't take forever to load, this would allow easier internationalization due to the existence of language templates (plus, many of the copies of the English Wikipedia catalogue are currently stagnant, outdated, and/or mostly untranslated). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made a proposal on the Commons BSicon renaming talk page to discontinue the CPIC root by renaming all CPIC icons to become XBHF, XACC and XINT (e.g. (heCPICr) would become hXBHF-Re). While icons are routinely renamed, this is an unusually wide-ranging change without precedent so it would be nice to have some more feedback there. Jc86035 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Criteria for using INT vs BHF
Hello everyone! I was wondering if there was any consensus for when to use the interchange icon versus the regular station icon on RDTs. I tried searching the archives of this talk page, but couldn't find anything. If a station offers local or intercity bus connections, should it have it? What about if you can get off and wait for a different train route? Or should it only be used for more substantial connections, like a subway, commuter rail, or other rail system? –Daybeers (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Daybeers: The use of bold text is strongly discouraged for RDTs because it draws emphasis away from the automatic bolding that Wikipedia applies to the self-target when a template is transcluded. The only time I use bold on a diagram is to emphasize smaller text labeling branches on the same diagram. (Note the Catford Loop Line, Dover branch, and Ramsgate branch on the Chatham main line as an example.)
How it appears trans- cluded onto the page “Unimportant railway station”
@Daybeers: See the examples to the right. When a page link in a template is transcluded into that page, the wikilink is replaced with bold text. That is why bolding shouldn’t be used in RDTs. Useddenim (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: That's what I thought you referring to, but what about when RDTs are not linked on station pages? I don't know of any Amtrak station where that is done. –Daybeers (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I'm not really sure how that's an example of why bold type shouldn't be used in an RDT, as the code in that revision specifically bolds each station. I agree that shouldn't be done, but I don't believe that example really explains your reasoning. I personally think bold type can be very useful for showing termini, and at least in the US, I have yet to come across a station article that transcludes an RDT template on it. Why would there be a need for it anyway, since there is the "services" section in the infobox? If a reader wants to know more about the specific line or service, they can click on the link in the services section. Mackensen, Pi.1415926535? –Daybeers (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Daybeers here - bold link text (blue) is visually distinct from bold self-link text (black), and they clearly mean different things. Bolding is useful to distinguish major stations, particularly termini of service patterns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can see the argument for termini, but for simple routes with only two it's hardly necessary. However, when applied for other reasons, e.g. “major” station, its use then becomes subjective. Useddenim (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To talk page watchers: I've created {{BSicon needed}} in case anyone has drawn or is drawing diagrams which should use icons that currently don't exist. The intent is that eventually someone will look in the tracking category and create the needed icons. Jc86035 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Ambiguity in names of overlap parameters
For templates like {{BS2}} etc., we allow each position to be empty, or to have one icon plus up to five overlap icons. The first overlap icon has a parameter name like |O1=|O2= etc., the digit being the icon position in the row. The second overlap icon will be |O12=|O22= etc., the first digit being the icon position in the row and the second digit being the overlap number. This works just fine where icon positions go up to 9; so for {{BS9}} the rightmost icon has overlap parameters |O9=|O92=|O93=|O94=|O95=. This also works for positions 10 and 11 of the longer templates - |O10= is unambiguous because there is no concept of a "zeroth overlap", and |O11= is unambiguous because the first overlap of position 1 is |O1=. Similarly, for the second to fifth overlaps of the longer templates we have |O122= to |O125= for the twelfth position, |O132= to |O135= for the thirteenth position, and so on.
The problem comes with the first overlap of positions 12 to 15 of the longer templates where we would use |O12=, |O13=, |O14= and |O15= - but these param names are already claimed. See for example this revision of Template:Transcoimbra which uses {{BS15}} with |O12=|O14= and |O15=. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: This is false. What Zackmann08 is actually doing is embarking on a campaign to delete unused templates, and the RDTs in question here were originally unused. I'm not engaged in any kind of campaign related to this at all, only !voting my opinion on some of his TfDs. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way to import those line diagrams formed of lots of templates from one wiki to another. I'm currently working on Draft:Tábor to Bechyně railway (very early draft), and cs:Elektrická dráha Tábor–Bechyně features one that would be useful to include - simply copying it directly gives what's currently at my sandbox.
As I haven't used these before, this might just be me doing something stupid.
@OxonAlex: I think you're asking how to make sure the contents on a transcluded template are included. When copying a page, you need to change {{TemplateName}} to {{subst:WP:TemplateName}}, where WP is the source wiki. (In your example you would replace "WP" with "CS".) I hope this helps. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding coords
I am trying to document the locations of the many closed railway lines in Queensland, Australia. My interest is in the role that railways played in the history of the development of Queensland rather than in railways themselves, so I am finding myself dealing with articles that contain these route diagrams and need to update them, but frankly haven't a clue about the mysterious encodings I am encountering in them. Apart from just fixing errors (missing stations, etc), I also need to add coordinates as the closed railway lines no longer appear on current maps (including Open Street Map) and nor can I generally find a historic railway map that clearly shows the railway line. So I am usually consulting a range of whatever historic maps are avalable and figuring out the route of the railway and the location of individual stations from these. How do I best capture this information in the route map? Because I could not figure it out how the route maps works, I have been capturing the information in a separate table with a column for the coords and using the {{GeoGroup}} template to display the locations of the stations overlaid on Open Street Map, but it seems very silly to have a separate table of stations and other points of interest with coords and a route map since they are both trying to tell the same story about the route. It would seem to make sense to put the coords into the route map (but still use GeoGroup to display it). So how do I go about it? Also due to the often mountainous/hilly terrain, our railway lines are narrow gauge (3ft 6in) and tend to twist and turn around the terrain, so the route between stations is often not straight. How do I add other points into the routemap where there isn't a station/river/road but I just want to show the twists and turns in the not-straight sections? My current focus of interest is Dugandan railway line which already had a route map, as a concrete example of what I doing (but feel sure there must be a better way). I appreciate a ping on any replies. Thanks Kerry (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
RDTs are intended to present a simplified layout for basic understanding and navigation; showing lots of twists and turns isn't their purpose. Adding coordinates would probably also not be advisable. What I would recommend is to create a KML file of the geographic route (using Google My Maps or a similar tool) and adding it using the {{Attached KML}} template. Any coordinates in the article (like the list of stations) will also be shown on the map. You can also have the stations as points in the KML file as well if you wish not to use a table in the article. I'm glad to walk you through any of these steps. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The additional information needs to be inside a <noinclude></noinclude> so that it doesn't show when it's transcluded. It's fixed now. --PhiH (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Annoying blank horizontal spaces on a hard-copy print-out
A colleague has asked me for a hard-copy print out of the Route Map of the Template : Lanchester Valley Railway RDT and when I did this, the resultant image was spoilt by a whole series of blank horizontal spaces. I did then try to print it out again using the PDF format, but the result was still the same. Can anything be done to correct matters, please?
The naming for the road half icons are inconsistent to and in conflict with the railway ones. They use ROOT{n/e/s/w} convention but the railway ones use ROOT{e/aq/a/eq} convention. In particular, the east half road icon (e) is in conflict with the end half railway icon (e). The road icons need to be renamed. Xeror (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
And here's a new one. It seems like one of these templates is proposed for deletion once a year or so. Much as it pains me, we might need a well advertised RFC to determine whether these templates should exist in template space or their code should be be directly included in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
1. On both Template:A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and Template:L Line (Los Angeles Metro), I can't seem to get the collapsed sections of the first tables to line up with the rest of them. If anyone can help with fixing this, as well as improving in any other additional areas, I would very much appreciate this!
2. This is more of a question, but would it be possible to theoretically fit a collapsed section within another collapsed section within a table? Like for example, when you click on "show" under Regional Connector on both Template:A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and Template:E Line (Los Angeles Metro), would it then be possible to then have it as that after doing so, you could once again click "show" to expand the sections for "Foothill Extension Phase 2B" and "Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2" for each respective template? If so, how? Would it be possible to do this for both tables?
Hi, the template is awesome, but does not, IMHO, marry well stylistically with the infobox such as in the Tempi train crash article (when in Mobile View). IMHO, this template's 'title' text should be centered, per the multi image template it is below, plus the 'navbar' background should bleed edge-to-edge within this template, instead of being truncated and left-justified. TMI?
With the almost clear border it makes the template alignment look misregistered with the template right above it in the Tempi train crash example article . Looking forward to your comments and refinements. (it renders fine in Desktop View.) Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}15:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
RfC: deprecation of BS-map (result: BS-map to be deprecated)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus in favor of {{routemap}}. There is a consensus in favor of replacing all BS-maps with Routemaps. While ultimately the usage for constructing the maps is subjective to the editor, and was the theme for much of the earlier comments in the RFC, the community would stand to benefit much more from a defined standard. As has been stated many times before, consensus is not a vote, and the strongest arguments seem to favor BS-Map's deprecation. The arguments I find to be the most strong are the accessibility issues of BS-Map on mobile platforms which Routemap seems to improve, as well as less so memory usage, which reducing such can definitely help accessibility. Overall, Existing BS-Maps should be converted into Routemaps, and the BS-Map template should ultimately be deprecated as requested for comment per the title. In my personal opinion, I would recommend that BS-map's code be retained and archived for historical reference, especially for any potential debugs, but its time for mass service to Wikipedia has come and gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs)
{{Routemap}} is a Lua-based reimplementation of {{BS-map}} and related templates. It was originally introduced in 2015. There have been two prior RfCs and one TfD on the question of replacing BS-map:
Strongly support — BS-maps are much less flexible than routemaps and the syntax in the former is horrendously complicated, making any upkeep or new additions very cumbersome. Routemap fixed some display issues that BS-maps has in certain browsers. BS-maps require several related templates to make the thing work, while routemap doesn't; it's just a simpler way of accomplishing better results. -MJ (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow...BS-maps is a lot more broken than I thought. This is how a template displays on mobile. [1] (link leads to screenshot from a mobile device) This isn't acceptable. -107.122.189.94 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Strongly oppose{{BS-map}} uses normal template syntax, and the markup may easily be traced through. I find the {{routemap}} syntax to be cryptic (the syntax, with all those double tildes and double slashes, is not used in any other part of Wikipedia) to the point of not being understandable, which makes these RDTs unmaintainable. I need to put in edit requests (example), and I should not need to do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Please do be civil. The habits and preferences of editors are important to factors to respect. Some editors prefer to use one interface over another, in a similar way to how some editors prefer to use the source editor instead of the visual editor or to how some editors prefer to edit German Wikipedia over English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, in fact, a multilingual organisation, and as such we ought to be sympathetic to editors whose established markup languages are different to ours. WT79(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)10:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Strongly support — I've used both and find {{Routemap}} much more intuitive to use, particularly for overlays and diagrams with varying widths. It's also more likely to produce diagrams which work on mobile devices. Bazza (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - BS map is much easier to create diagrams with. It should be creator's choice which system is used. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. Given the documented problems with BS-map, including memory usage and mobile display, I can't see maintaining two separate templates with different syntaxes based entirely on editor preference. The community spoke long ago on which it preferred, and which it finds easier to use. Mackensen(talk)11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. Our first priority is to our readers, and the performance issues and the severe mobile display issues with BS-map mean that it isn't good for readers. From a community perspective, I fully agree with Mackensen's statement. I understand that routemap has a learning curve, but it is ultimately a vastly superior backend for RDTs. The implementation of Redrose64's edit request is a good example of that: an arbitrary number of icons can be layered in routemap using the same !~ separator, while it requires a whole set of new parameters in BS-map. As someone who is fluent in both routemap and BS-map, I actually find routemap much more intuitive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Neutral, as I never make that type of templates. But quite often I come across route templates with links to disambiguation pages that are technically hard to solve, even when you know the answer. So I opt for the one that makes those links the most easy to fix. The Bannertalk18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Support. Whatever style of templates the community picks, there should never be more than one. That makes it harder for everyone - for new editors and for experienced editors. And this is also not a question of personal preference as this isn't how an editor likes to style their own user page, but about reader facing articles and images. Currently, BS-map has 3,324 transclusions while Routemap has 22,463. It's quite clear what the community has chosen. Lets finish with this replacement (the lovely editors watching at WP:TFD/H are always happy to help with these sort of things). --Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pppery that's a strong accusation, and the 2016 consensus wasn't that conversions were improper per se, it was that (effectively) a conversion should not take place against the wishes of the principal maintainer(s) of the template. For example, if I'm the principal maintainer of Template:Foo, and I want to use Routemap instead of BS-map, that's perfectly fine under the 2016 and 2019 discussions. It would be strange if that's not fine. Mackensen(talk)15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Neutral I never make route templates, but fix links to disambiguation pages in those templates. I opt for the one that makes it most easy to fix those. The Bannertalk11:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment: is there a way of producing a new interface for the same routemap module? If there were a technical way of using a template-wizard-like interface so that the tables could be semi-visual to make and edit, I think that it would make things easier for both new editors and those familiar with BSmap templates. WT79(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I just need some help with this template. My goal here is to use the blue shade #0078BE for all of the Capital Line. While I have already changed some of it and uploaded a few of my own files, I'm not really sure how to make the parallel icons which include both the red shades #EF161E and #be2d2c that certain shade of blue, since they are both one file and I don't know where to upload these new files and under what names; perhaps under a new file set? If anyone has any idea, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
You are trying to use icons which are non-standard. See c:BSicon/Catalogue for what is available as standard. There are also some sets of coloured icons available which you could use for overlays.
Hi! I was wondering if it would even be possible to overlay (bvISLAND) at Template:Red Line (Washington Metro) at Fort Totten given the already complex constraints on that column? I figured out how to get it to work at both Takoma and Brookland-CUA, but this is a very complex task out of my skill level. Thanks! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@OrdinaryScarlett: You probably can, but messily (= harder to maintain).
I have encountered similar conundrums of my own and ended up remembering that these are route diagrams, not necessarily accurate track plans. There is a similar layout at {{District line simple RDT}}, where two non-stop Piccadilly line tracks are in the centre, with stopping District line tracks on the outside. (See Ravenscourt Park tube station for a description.) The diagram, though, simply shows a non-stop route alongside a stopping route, with branches and divergences as appropriate. Bazza (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate any Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." How does moving track layouts for a single station to a template not violate this? Most of these templates have no chance of being used on more than one page. Steelkamp (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, by being stand-alone templates, it helps with categorization by not being dependent on the parent article. Useddenim (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Useddenim. There's long-standing consensus at TfD that RDTs do not violate the guideline. Consensus can change of course, but this has actually come up several times; it's not a case of a long-standing issue flying under the radar. Mackensen(talk)19:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I wonder if there can be a noinclude banner at the top of the template page stating this and pointing to the previous discussion(s) so that someone comes to delete these, they can see the established consensus without having to start a bunch of TfDs. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
There's been a spate of TfDs lately about this issue. I'm not sure the best way to establish a clear consensus that in-use RDTs should be kept. There's clearly an implicit consensus, with several thousand RDTs out there, but having something definite to link to would be best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added a note to {{Railway-routemap}}, the standard documentation note used for RDT templates. See {{Yunusobod Line}} for how it looks when it is transcluded. Feel free to tweak my wording, link to a better discussion, revert it, or discuss the text here. I am a busy template editor, a frequent participant at TFD and have worked on many Adjacent stations upgrades, so I am somewhat familiar with the topic areas involved here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Useddenim/Archive 11
