Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Country Route diagram


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It seems the problem has been solved and the page is no longer needed. I'll speedy Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North) shortly as CSD G7 as David Biddulph is the author of those pages and is requesting deletion of them, albeit via prod. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross Country Route diagram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently created as a sort of workaround to try and avoid reaching the transclusion limit on Cross Country Route. However substituting it here at this "sub article" doesn't get it to show up properly either, so as a workaround it seems useless. The solution (IMO) is to delete this page and somehow figure out how to make Template:Cross Country Route RDT less massive. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page did display, through to the version of 3 January, but subsequent modifications have corrupted the display. I'll be happy, of course, if some one sorts out the problem of Template:Cross Country Route RDT, but nobody with the relevant knowledge has got round to doing that yet.  I will remind you that until I pulled this out into the separate page, the main article Cross Country Route wasn't being displayed correctly because a variety of templates (including reflist) weren't being correctly transcluded. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "subsequent modifications have corrupted the display" Well, yes, that's my point. What is the point of a workaround if it doesn't work? I'm not having a go at you – I can definitely understand why you've created this page and it was a reasonable idea – but if it's not working it seems pointless to keep in article space. As for solutions, does the template really need to be so detailed? (Honest question, I rarely edit train-related articles.) Would we really be losing much if we just reverted the template back to this version? Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of an RDT is that it details the route of the line rather than of the services which may use it. For a person on a train, sure it doesn't matter at all that between Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham Spa is a junction, but if you want to know about the line itself, that's important.
 * Think of it this way - if you're on a bus, you don't need to know what route it takes between A and B so long as it gets there; but if you're driving yourself, you need to be able to follow an actual route, and you can't use a map which doesn't include all the roads. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it actually worked then it would obviously be optimal. But surely it is better to have a simplified template that can actually be transcluded instead of one with more information that none of our readers can see. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See below. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - As another (possibly temporary) fix, I've now split the diagram into Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North) to replace this page and get round the transclusion size problem. As in the previous version, any improvements would be welcomed.  Of course, if everyone is happy with that split solution I would have no objection to the deletion of this page as proposed in this AFD. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think it misses the main problem, which is that in order for readers to view this they now have to click through two separate pages, rather than actually viewing it on the page it should be on. Fixing the template is the long-term solution. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Gah! You're as bad as my wife. (‘If it doesn't work then throw it out’—instead of fixing it.) KEEP. Useddenim (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (see below)
 * I can't tell if you're serious. Even the article creator sees no need for this particular page anymore because even if we use the same workaround it has now been split into Cross Country Route (South) and Cross Country Route (North), making this page redundant. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was made aware of this while working a Move Request for this target. This should be deleted as a unused, unlinked, non-functional template workaround created in the main article space. It is not transcluded into any article, nor is it linked from a mainspace article. Since it is not working as designed, and is unused --- moving it is a moot point. It should be deleted, technical problems worked out, and then recreated in the template or other non-article space.Tiggerjay (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. However, the split diagrams are not part of this discussion and as such should not be deleted. There is need of certain large RDTs to be housed in article space for technical reasons - usually size limits. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Cross Country Route RDT has been converted to Routemap and now displays correctly. (In fact, Cross Country Route (North) and Cross Country Route (South) can now also be deleted for the same reason.) Useddenim (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.