Template talk:BSsplit/Archive 1

Wierdness
When I was reworking Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway Beighton Branch (old version) to Routemap due to template size limit, the BSsplit showing "Cottam & W Burton/Power Stations" got my attention for a design flaw that the effective width of the template itself takes into account of the actual link title no matter how short the piped link appears to be thanks to str len. Something has to be done to make it checks for the correct string length. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still wrestling with the alignment problem. There should be a way to parse wikilink text. (Where is ((U|YLSS}} when we need him?) Useddenim (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't this problem a much smaller one than the one introduced by this latest "fix" (namely, that it makes it impossible to expand the contents of many BS-collapsibles; see for example the current form of Providence/Stoughton Line)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BSsplit never worked inside a collapsible section because Wikitext doesn't support a table nested inside a collapsible table. I though I had created a work-around by using HTML, but that created a different problem. AFAIK, Providence/Stoughton Line is the only instance where anyone has used &#124;&#124;BSsplit}} inside a collapsible section, so let's leave it at that (instead of breaking the thousands of transclusions that expect it to work the way it always has) until it's fixed. Useddenim (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

brace-pipe doesn't code for a cell... except at the beginning of a line
When coding for a cell, we need to be sure that the  is at the beginning of the line. Thus, we should have {| etc instead of {| etc This breaks the simplified version of BSrow, and thus requires the actual ugly form. Pldx1 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, we need to force the hand of the parser by adding the right incantation. Using a &lt;br> would be too much. It happens that &lt;span>&lt;/span> makes the job. And thus, we should have:

{| etc Pldx1 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh, why the sudden need for a change? The template’s been around for 4½ years, and I’ve never noticed a problem… Useddenim (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)