Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 8

suez canal
See Suez Canal map. This edit (better: this edit) spoiled the row saying "E-class turning dock, local connection channel" (visible after you expand "Port Said"). I'd like to see back the old water routes. And no diffusive channels. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Adjusted -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The update on BS-overlap would show nothing if there is no base icon, per the first list item at above. Secondly, what do you mean by diffusive channels? &mdash; Peter why  01:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing problems
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rail gauge auto conversion
There is some weird rail gauge auto conversion happening someplace. I do not like the results.

The template Hejaz Railway has this entry: When reading it on the template page it renders as However in the article Hejaz Railway I read The conversion is bloat in this context, it makes the template unnecessarily wide and still the line does not fit.
 * 91,2	Esra formerly 600mm-narrow gauge to as-Suwayda
 * 91,2	Esra formerly 600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in)-narrow gauge to as-Suwayda

The reason may be some auto conversion on all railway articles. If so, templates should be protected from the conversion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A verbose legend
I am working with Panama Canal map (created it, along with similar Suez Canal map. Should be ... diagram I know).

I'd like to improve it this way: a written (verbose) 'legend'. Or better: description of the systems that come together. So, for example, I want to explain that apart from the plain canal, there is also a waterflow system. And a freshwater issue. Now I tried full-text rows, but I cannot get it working. See Panama Canal map/sandbox.

Please, any suggestion for the RDT in this (and about the complexity: systems together)? The sandbox is free for edits. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: In computing industry, where "independent still related systems" come together we call that a "platform". Same for navy ships. So maybe we are talking "Panama Canal platform". Clearly, Panama canal is not about individual crossings any more.
 * Also, this proposed wordly legend could be integrated with the symbols legend. Would be great. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Use BS-map instead of the obsolete  construct. Useddenim (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlaps with no base icon
At least two RDTs are using HUB icons such as to draw a boundary, see Template:Bristol railway map and Template:Metrolink RTD. I recently noticed that neither of these was showing the complete boundary (see old versions and ). I worked out that the boundary lines were all set using the overlap parameters O1 etc. and that all the gaps in the boundary line occurred where the boundary passed through a cell where there was no base icon. Accordingly, at such positions, I moved the overlap icon to base position, and the boundaries are now complete again.

Having fixed those, I would like to locate and fix up any other cases. The cause is simple: since, has ignored any cell where there is no base icon, even if one or more overlaps have been set. Rather than try to alter it to draw the overlap icons when there is no base icon (which would slow down the template), I think it would be best to add some code to detect such usage, so that RDTs can be fixed up individually. This is probably best done using a tracking category - I'm not sure which category would be best for the job, but it would go where I've put  in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ No objections received after one week, so I've gone ahead. Problem RDTs will show in hidden . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oversized icons in mobile view


I recently encountered an error for RDT in mobile view as shown in the screenshot, where some icons are in double size. Although I am not able to test it, I suspect this was due to these CSS styles:

And unfortunately, almost all icons fall into the selector ".image img", which selects images inside an &lt;a&gt; tag to the image description page. Similarly, the error also happens for icons quoted by BSicon quote, like. I have not yet found another template example outside RDT which uses inline images linked to their own description page.

This error happens in my iOS6 device, for both Safari and Google Chrome browsers. My device has a Retina display which loads images in 2x resolution but shows images in 1x resolution. This error does not happen with my PC with Firefox nor Google Chrome, but I guess this is only because my PC does not have 2x device pixel ratio. &mdash; Peter why  16:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Routemap
Just wanted to inform you about a discussion regarding replacing current set of route diagram templates with a single one. KPu3uC B Poccuu (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there's still some glitch of replacement of startCollapsible row and equivalence of BSn-2 not available yet (supposedly), it's quite safe now we can test the speed of map comprises traditional BS row templates and the Lua module. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

{{BS-map {{BS3/sandbox||STRq||Text1|Text2|Text3|Text4|tw=100px}} {{BS3/sandbox||BHF|STR|Text1|Text2|Text3|Text4}} {{BS3-startCollapsible/sandbox2||STRq||Text1|Text2|Text3|Text4}} {{BS3-replace/sandbox|STR|BHF}} {{BS3/sandbox||BHF|STR|Text1|Text2|Text3|Text4}} {{!}}}
 * title=Merging BS and BS-2
 * collapse={{collapse|}}
 * map-title=BSn alone
 * map=
 * map2-title=BSn-2 alone
 * map2=


 * map3-title=mixing BSn and BSn-2
 * map3=

}}


 * For compatibility for BS-2 rows, I am trying to merge BS and BS-2 cases together to make them similar variants. I hope this more-unified format would help you code your Lua modules, since you guys can simply code them in similar instances. &mdash; Peter why  19:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both BS3-startCollapsible/sandbox2 and BS3-replace/sandbox shift the row improperly in Chrome. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, forget to revert one template before I went to sleep. &mdash; Peter why  05:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User script for icon tooltips
As I mentioned months ago in the major BS-overlap update, I have been in the progress of re-introducing tooltips for BSicons using a user script. Now, for those editors who are interested to try out this optional tool, you may take a look on User:Peterwhy/BSiconTooltips for more descriptions and an installation guide. &mdash; Peter why  18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RDT templates and VisualEditor
John Vandenberg has reported at VisualEditor/Feedback that some (but not all) RDT templates are being displayed across the entire width of the page when viewed in VisualEditor (this is distinct from the known alignment issues). He (and I) haven't been able to identify what might be causing the issue on those templates that exhibit it and not on others. Details at the above link, but any help figuring this out would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Purpose and scope
I am having problems with an editor who feels that RDTs are simply a Navbox or a list of stations. There should probably be something on the Project page that provides a clear and concise definition and statement of purpose, perhaps something along the lines of “A route diagram template is a graphical representation of a transportation line or network that contains wikilinks to its main elements and other associated features.” Any input would be welcome. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still the same story? Feel free to cite my comment at that TfD, I don't know what else to write... YLSS (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that is what RDTs do, but I think it is a very general statement, it isn't concise and a number of questions come to mind. What is the definition of "other associated features"? I don't want to see RDTs getting bloated with every little detail the line goes past or does. How will WP:OVERLINKING be applied to RDTs? Should they just link to transport related articles, or landmarks and places too? How will the reader know what they are clicking on if stations have the same name as places? You didn't mention future information, at what point in the certainty of a non-existing main element or associated feature does it get added to the RDT? 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Future
This page mentions proposed lines in the #&#123;&#123;BS2text&#125;&#125; &#123;&#123;BS3text&#125;&#125; &#123;&#123;BS4text&#125;&#125; … &#123;&#123;BS9text&#125;&#125; section, but nowhere on this page does it talk about how to handle future information. I think adding proposed stations and lines is a bad idea, because they can often be cancelled, changed, or be many, many years into the future. I think readers expect some sort of certainty in the illustration, if an encyclopedia has decided to show it in a detailed illustration. My opinion is to not show a station until the construction of it has been planned. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, in a way, it does. On the same page Tips states:"“If an unusual situation requires using a current icon unconventionally, give an explanation either by the text level with the icon or by a note at the top or bottom of the map, separated by an empty row or border line, showing the 'misused' icon and its meaning.”"
 * Then, at the very top of the watercourses page, is shown as an example of “planned/under construction”. In the RDT snippet to the right, the dotted line segment is explicitly called out as a future project. Also, you seem to imply that WP:FUTURE takes precedence over WP:Notability. However, Wikipedia does allow for reporting the anticipation of a future event if "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress". Useddenim (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, there are two examples of future information, but again, nowhere does it talk about how much to show. Yes, the anticipation of a future event can be discussed, in the prose about how future lines and stations are being studied and proposed, but should this be graphically illustrated? If the locations and names aren't pinned down, my answer is no. 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes; your perennial answer. It’s not a dialogue if you only have one answer. Useddenim (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, my position is the same: no detailed plan of the station layout => no article, and do not include it into the general RDT. However, I do not enforce my view at ru.wp. YLSS (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the generally-accepted standard seems to be that if it appears in the article, then it's OK to include it in an RDT. Useddenim (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Useddenim, I'm still trying to understand where you're coming from, what exactly do you mean by "it"? If there's no name or location, there's nothing to show in an RDT, right? I think it should be mentioned on this project page what should not be shown in the diagram. Useddenim, where do you draw the line with what is too uncertain to be shown? 117Avenue (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something, have you answered these questions already? 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not until now. (However, you’re welcome to come and cut my lawn, winterize my pool, rake my leaves and work my overtime if you'd like me to devote more time to Wikipedia.) The point I was trying to make was that if something along a route is relevant to the routing and is mentioned in the article, it is à propos to have that same element appear in the diagram. It is pointless to try and state which particular features should or should not be shown on any individual RDT because then that will be used as a simple yes/no checklist. The decision should be based on relevance and notability. Further, some details, such as road crossings are more appropriate for an RDT: it’s not necessary to list every single one in a table or paragraph, but oftentimes useful to see where they are located relative to other features. Do you understand now? Useddenim (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that if something along a route is relevant it should appear in the diagram, but I was asking about when there is no confirmed route. If there is no approved route, there is no features to show. It is very important to state which features should not be shown, because otherwise users could add imaginary items or routes, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I don't think this discussion is going to come to any sort of conclusion on what text is added to the project page, so I will only ask that the word "proposals" be removed. If the page won't explain how to handle proposed routes, it shouldn't mention them. I agree that decisions need to be made on the relevance and notability of items, so I continue to encourage discussion on Template talk:ETS LRT route and Template talk:Metro Line. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposed routes make sense to include, but, possibly not in the main RDT. It depends on how it's set up really, but most proposals do contain "station here" even if they have no exact route, but RDTs don't care about route, so it's ok. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that a diagram showing all proposals would be OK next to a section discussing future developments, or in an article devoted to a proposed line. But in a general diagram, any future stations have no place unless there are at least more or less detailed projects of their layout. YLSS (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there are two questions here:
 * should diagrams contain future information?
 * if they should, what future information should they contain?
 * In my opinion, the answer to question 1 is; yes, including planned works (lines or stations) on route diagrams is both desirable and essential to give a reader a full understanding of the subject. A route diagram that does not show future planned work is failing in its purpose. There has always been an assumption that future developments may be included in diagrams; for example, the Catalogue of pictorgrams repeatedly refers to the light colour versions of the icons as being usable for planned works.
 * The answer to question 2, therefore, is that the information that should be included is that which can be reasonably verified (as required by WP:FUTURE). Purely speculative information should not be included, but the test of verification does not need to be too strong:
 * A proposal to build a railway line can be verified, even if the exact configuration of the route is not known
 * A plan to build a station can be verified, even if the exact location or name is not known
 * 117Avenue was concerned at the top of this topic that information on future plans should not be included because "they can often be cancelled, changed, or be many, many years into the future". This is true, but, in my experience, these changes are quickly reflected by editors updating the subject information and the diagrams as the information changes. If a plan is some years in the future, the article text will almost certainly explain this.
 * 117Avenue was also concerned that readers "expect some sort of certainty in the illustration". I agree, up to a point, but an illustration needs to provide as much information as possible and plans for the future are important details that are likely to be of interest to anyone that has come to an article about a railway line.--DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it needs to be verifiable, and not speculative, to conform with WP:FUTURE. 117Avenue (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What a drama. The only think I want to state is that I oppose to define "what should be included and what not" in RDT project page, neither does help:table. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So avoid the subject by not mentioning future or proposed? 117Avenue (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf pretty much explained the reasons for that. Actually I feel the namespace of the RDT project is slightly misleading ("help" namespace would be more appropriate), this is not meant to impose any MOS policy on most diagrams. Policies like reliable source and crystal ball sufficiently serve the purpose and there is nothing for RDT project page to add or clarify. My opinion on your concern of future development is that I do agree that we should not add the information of "unlikely event" into the main diagram, but how un/likely the proposal would be should be discussed individually in the respective article talk page, not here. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone said above, it is not possible to give a single definite answer about whether future schemes should be included beyond "sometimes". It depends on several factors, including:
 * The nature of the RDT - what is it showing? RDTs can be about showing existing systems or can be about showing how proposals, etc, fit in. An RDT for the Greater Bristol Metro article would be different to Template:Bristol railway map despite covering a very similar geographical area. Indeed, there are existing RDTs that exist to show proposals, e.g. Template:Windsor Link Railway, Berkshire RDT
 * The level of detail in the diagram - RDTs can cover everything from continental scale to a single station, some like the Bristol map above are very detailed and future proposals would overwhelm them, others are simpler - Template:Wealden Line has space for noting where proposed routes would have diverged.
 * The nature of the scheme - how advanced is the planning or how notable is the scheme? In London showing Crossrail interchanges on the main articles is correct as it is under construction. The Docklands Light Railway extension to Dagenham Dock probably should not be shown in full on the main DLR system RDT, despite having a planned route, but possibly the divergence from the current route should be. The Northern Heights plans are notable and showing them on an RDT is fine, but they shouldn't be on the main Northern Line diagram for complexity reasons. If a proposal is notable then not having a confirmed route is not necessarily a barrier - for example Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell.
 * All this means that a judgement needs to be made for each case on its individual merits, prohibiting them all outright or including them all automatically would be wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this project page has no section on the purpose and scope, or the appropriate use on the template, as proposed by Useddenim in the section above, the only place we have to put any sort of resolution to this is the tips section. How does this sound: 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In order to comply with the no original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policies, information regarding planned and proposed features need to be verifiable with reliable sources.

I guess no one has a problem with this? 117Avenue (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Only just seen that, but yes it's fine by me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with text sizing
I've just created a new RDT Template:Newcastle-Gateshead RDT, but I can't work out how to correctly size the text. The last line should be the smaller text size, while Gateshead Interchange should be full size. Any other improvements or tidying also appreciated! Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ see . The basic requirement was to move the text two positions to the right - I could have left it in the same parameter and altered the to . Besides that, I made the whole RDT non-collapsed on the template page so that it's easier to view; I removed the   which looked like a misleading placeholder; and also the category, which is superfluous because it's pulled in by . -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's fixed the last line although not the size of the Gateshead Interchange label. I've removed the explicit category from Template:Newcastle lines RDT that I based this one on. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't spot that. This was simply a case of two positions to the left. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BS fractional text templates break test

 * Railway line header


 * BS-map

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BS-map, PX=25px

Categories for WP:Route diagram templates
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ACC symbols
seems to have embarked on a program to change all and  symbols to plain /  icons. (See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Birmingham_Cross-City_Line&diff=prev&oldid=653551369] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Trent_Valley_Line&diff=prev&oldid=653510152], for example) using the rationale ‘wikipedia is not a travel guide’. Useddenim (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * More discussion (perhaps the discussion which led to removing the symbols) here --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BScvt gaps
Whenever the BScvt distances are used in a route diagram, the two lines of measurements cause gaps in the diagram, rather than a continuous line. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve reduced the text height by 10%. Does that help? Useddenim (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Better, yes, thanks. Still a little gap, but you can only do so much. (See Providence/Stoughton Line.)  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TfD
There are two discussions at WP:Templates for discussion that some members of this project might be interested in (here and here). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

htACCe
I made a new icon. It basically with wheelchair access.

Here are some:

Any thoughts? γ=2πrt2 (talk|Contributions) 06:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is normally discussed at c:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests since it can affect many Wikipedias in addition to the English one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion restored at Commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests.

Diagram orientation
Is there a convention on how to orient a diagram: e.g., should the northern-most or possibly eastern-most places be towards the top?Ingafube (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They generally follow the same convention as maps: North at the top. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Ingafube (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lua-based RDT
ru:template:routemap was originally written by user:YLSS but he(she?) is dormant for few months already for reason we can hardly know, so I decided to copy the module to en.wp and begin actual usage. The basic documentation is ready but there are few more tricky functions like colspan not detailed in the doc because I barely used it in zh.wp. Some London railway routemaps have already been "Lua-ified" in zh.wp (albeit somehow outdated) so you may check the Chinese version for comparison like template:Gospel Oak to Barking Line and zh:福音橡至柏京綫. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparison (click preview and scroll to bottom for Parser profiling data):
 * Crossrail: before vs. after
 * Those two links are identical in action.
 * Others: The change that Sameboat made is
 * All: If that is to be the new RDT syntax, count me out. It is awful. Also, if there is to be any conversion of existing templates to Lua, I shall unwatch this page as well as those templates that get converted; I will also not be helping anybody with their RDT problems. Why? As I have stated elsewhere, regular template markup is just like normal Wiki markup with a few extra features, I can trace the code through, and finding out which parameters are valid is a simple matter of looking for  markup. Lua templates have a totally different syntax, that is not at all easy to trace through, and it is not possible to find out if a parameter is valid or not (some people say that it is, but nobody has yet been able to demonstrate it to me). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can keep using the legacy BS row templates as long as the RDT doesn't exceed the template size... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Intended to reply to in WikiProject Trains) The syntax must be changed because it allows unlimited icon cells of each row and unlimited layers of icon superimposition without adding more code to the module. For the legacy templates, if you want something like (BS20) you need to create a new template for that which is unproductive. I know many users may be scared of the new syntax, so you can keep using the legacy BS templates unless the RDT exceeds template size, but here is what has happened in zh.wp since the introduction of the Lua-RDT: article using module:routemap (1500) vs. articles transcluding template:BSrow (1055). You can somehow tell Wikipedians can adapt even if the new syntax looks alien at first. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the above discussion correctly, the new method allows RDTs to be created where a lot of columns are needed (bigger than BS9?), and also those diagrams which are so large that they exceed the allowable size for an RDT. If this is the case, then I suggest that we don't go changing existing RDTs to the new format, unless one of the two conditions above is met. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the articles transcluding the RDT will load faster. The complexity of the RDT with loads of parameters and #if:/#switch: parser functions justify the change. The substitute of BS-map, Routemap, has been converted to Lua as well which should have happened long ago. Even tho Routemap lacks parameters, IIRC these parameters are rarely used except for the documentation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All of which is of absolutely no use whatsoever if editors don't understand the new system and cannot easily edit diagrams as necessary! Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the module work with the BStext series of templates? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Having seen arrive on my watchlist, I have unwatched it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No... But I would prefer colspan because the length of the text in BStext may ruin the icon columns. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just gone to make an edit on Waverley Line only to find that it has changed from something that is understandable and easily editable to complete gobbledegook. There should be an IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM to these undiscussed massed changes in format to RDTs that clearly do not require many columns or exceed template size limits. This is getting out of hand. Just because a very small group of editors think that they have had a good idea, doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea. These proposals should be thoroughly discussed, explained and WP:CONSENSUS gained before they are brought in en masse. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've returned the Waverley Line RDT to its original form., I would caution you NOT to revert unless and until consensus is reached over this issue. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww... can't take 10 minutes to figure out the new (simpler) syntax? Three converted templates is "getting out of hand"? (And it's obvious from your changes that you can't even tell the difference between and . Useddenim (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind a simple error that you could have easily fixed. Despite my warning not to revert, you went ahead and did so. As I said, there is no consensus for the mass alteration in the style of RDTs. Therefore I am going to open a RFC on the subject. There should be no further change in style of RDTs until the discussion has concluded. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need weekly sitreps of your watchlist; thank you. Alakzi (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You won't. You get a report each time that somebody converts an RDT without prior discussion. After three, I start reverting. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind you, it didn't actually show up before it was converted. RDT is better than no RDT. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also one hugely template-abundant page may show up normally in your computer but not be the case in another user's because of your location from the Wikimedia server and/or the bandwidth of your ISP, it's still a better idea to reduce template size no matter what for the sake of users with poor internet connection. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC
Further to the above discussion, should RDTs generally be converted to the Lua format, or left as they were originally created, with exceptions for those RDTs that either require a large number of columns or exceed template size limits.

The argument in favour of the change is mostly based on the time it takes to load the diagrams. In many cases, this is not an issue as diagrams generally are not so big as to seriously impede on page load times. The argument against the changes is that they are being brought in en masse without consensus for such change. Apart from the very few editors who have thought up this new system, nobody understands how it works. I tried editing one such template under the new system and couldn't work out what went where, let alone a simple action such as moving a line of text up one line.

Whilst this subject is under discussion, and as the new system is being challenged, no existing RDTs should be changed, unless and until such time as there is consensus to do so. Editors who disregard this will be warned and blocked as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Rfc bottom}}
 * Comment Don't really see the hold up here. It's more versatile, more efficient, less resource-intensive, and to my understanding, how you actually use the template seems to be unchanged. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT/It's new therefore it's wrong, I don't hear a lot of arguments for keeping the old template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - it's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. This is a case of a mass change being introduced without consensus, and one that makes editing of RDTs much harder to achieve. I understand the case for large diagram, both in terms of columns and size, but the reasons given for the change are not ones causing major issues that need to be fixed. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - you say "how you actually use the template seems to be unchanged" - no, it's not at all the same, see from old to new format. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:  Four Three changed diagrams is not an “en masse” change. And an admin threatening blocking just because someone does not acquiesce to his demand is an abuse of privilege. The syntax of Routemap is simpler, if one actually bothers to take a look at it. Admittedly, the documentation could be clearer (but that's a different issue). As noted above, this seems simply to be a case of WP:IDL and good old-fashioned laziness. Useddenim (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another reason Routemap is better because the dual text row(BSn-2) markup is more intuitive than the legacy. Routemap syntax simply follows the exact order of "left note-left text-icon ids-right text-right note" when being rendered, but the legacy version uses the alternating order of "icon ids-left text-right text-left note-right note". But the solution to the current dispute is that we follow the rules of "whoever got it first gains the privilege" and "no stalking policy":
 * We retain the diagram markup (be it legacy or Routemap) as is.
 * Diagram by legacy markup can be updated if it exceeds template size limit.
 * If someone changes the legacy markup to Routemap without the template size issue but is unchallenged by the previously involved contributor(s), the diagram can retain the new form.
 * Editors not reasonably involved in the diagram before the markup update should not revert it
 * If the previously involved contributors do challenge the change, the map must be reverted to its previous form.--Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Routemap may have a small learning curve for users more familiar with wikicode and template parameters, but overall I find it's a little easier to use due to some of the reasons other users have already stated here, and also that the overlay syntax is slightly simpler. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The new is very smart looking, well done. Given experience and improved documentation I see no bar to rolling this out. The notational separation between ids (slashes) and explanatory text (tildes) is also appreciated and I think in time will improve readability as people adjust (I don't know about anyone else, but I've gotten lost in the pipes before). Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. There's documentation on embedding, but it involves inline markup. It's a common practice on US articles at least to have the RDT in a separate template (e.g. ) and embed that into the infobox (see Blue Water (train)). That doesn't seem to be supported at the moment, or if it is I couldn't work out how to do it. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You simply add  in the diagram template page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've updated the documentation as well. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A couple of years ago, I was working on a detailed diagram of the West Coast Main Line. If I remember correctly, it was so big that it had to be split into two (three?) diagrams. It would seem an ideal candidate for a single diagram to be created under the new system, which would meet the exception for size reasons. Anyone interested in creating this, ping me. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our new RDT DSL is only two stops away from brainfuck. On the upside, brainfuck is used in AI - you know, if self-programming RDTs is a route we wanna take. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I came across this discussion by accident, but it interested me, so I decided to try out the new routemap system. I have to say I'm very impressed.  I spent about an hour converting a BS-Map to Routemap to learn how it works, and overall it was very simple to learn (that coming from someone with little code experience outside of Wikipedia).  There are four things that I feel are an improvement over the current BS-Map: 1) As already pointed out, the BSn-2 is in a format that is much easier to keep track of, as it keeps everything in the order that it will appear (left-text, code, right-text).  2) Not having to include "{{BSn" at the start of each line.  It's a small change, but when I'm editing routemaps one of the most frustrating parts is trying to figure out where the BSnumber doesn't match with the number of pipes. 3) On a related note, using backslashes instead of pipes is much easier to read and spot problems. 4) The way that overlays work is a vast improvement.  If I was going to create a new map that was going to include overlays, I would chose routemap over BS-Map in a heartbeat.  Overall, I think this is a better system, and might be easier for newer editors to learn.  Just my two cents. JohnMcButts (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of RDTs
Since the RFC has concluded, how should we proceed with the conversion of RDTs to Routemap? I personally think that we should first convert the diagrams which still use BS-table and Railway line header, and then proceed with the templates using BS-map. Note that both the &#123;&#123;BSn&#125;&#125; (up to BS10) and &#123;&#123;BSn-2&#125;&#125; series of templates (although not the collapsible headers) can now be substituted to produce Routemap code. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not convert any. I will also unwatch any that do get converted. I also think that the RfC above should not have been closed "There is consensus for the conversion" since that is not at all apparent to me - most people opined the neutral Comment and nobody firmly said Support - or even Oppose.
 * Do not convert simply for the sake of conversion,. There should be a demonstrable benefit to doing do. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically per Redrose64. If there is a clear benefit (size / width issue) then RDTs should be converted. Nothing in the above RFC or that has been said anywhere else prevents new diagrams being created under the new system. This should be down to creator preference. I note that my request for a complete West Coast Main Line diagram under the new system (size issue) has not been taken up. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I specifically said that BS-table diagrams should be converted to Routemap first, because they usually get replaced with BS-map anyway. Railway line header2 and Railway line header (center) have already been brought to TfD and are formally in the process of being replaced and will be deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To say that there was no firm support is a mis-characterization: there was one "vehemently oppose" and a bunch of "seems like a good idea". Personally, I would convert to Routemap as I edit, but Redrose64 has already threatened once to block me if I did. Useddenim (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When did I make that threat? -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies; it was : here. Useddenim (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - the reason behind that has now passed. I would still press for caution in this area, as despite closing the RFC as "there is consensus", it is obvious that there is still considerable opposition. As I'm WP:INVOLVED, blocking by myself is not now possible. Other avenues of action remain open, including WP:ANI. As I have stated above, I see no major benefit in converting RDTs where size is not an issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, templates using the convoluted BS-table and Railway line header combination are being converted to BS-map through the normal course of editing anyway, so should they be converted to Routemap instead of BS-map? It seems pointless to convert a diagram once (to &#123;&#123;BS-map&#125;&#125;), only to have to convert it again afterwards (to &#123;&#123;Routemap&#125;&#125;), because inevitably we will want to have a uniform display of these diagrams. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they should not be converted to Routemap as a matter of course. That system requires a degree in computer programming to understand. Where size is an issue, then routemap can be used. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking from personal experience, when I first encountered BSicons around two years ago, the parameter system of the &#123;&#123;BSn&#125;&#125; templates was quite confusing for me and I kept trying to add nonexistent parameters and putting text in the wrong places. (I don't think I encountered the &#123;&#123;BSn-2&#125;&#125; templates, which would have been even more confusing.) I would say that from the point of view of most participants in the RfC (most of whom have yet to comment here), the Routemap system is slightly easier to learn without understanding the complex documentation. (On a tangential note, I would suggest that links on the icons – or at least title text like – be added to Routemap, maybe for the Template namespace only, to aid editors.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 12:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RDTs incorrectly displaying
A bug seems to have appeared in the last 24 hours which has led to a number of RDTs incorrectly displaying. See for example Duckmanton Junction, Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway and East Halton railway station. Any ideas what caused this? There have been no recent changes to. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Check the Template:Passenger Lines of North East Lincolnshire, does it seem to be fixed now? I changed the location of the at the end of the template. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, disregard that. It didn't fix it on the article itself. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that *any* edit (even adding a single space somewhere) will cause a template to display properly for me. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely it was the edits to and  early this morning by .  will have fixed the first template, and a  by  will have fixed the second, but they won't have prevented ancillary damage; that and the fixes both need to progress through the job queue before everything's right again.  a WP:NULLEDIT should fix any page (whether template or article) where you see a misdisplayed RDT; you don't need to add any spaces - click "edit" and go straight for . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting the problem. Any chance these templates could be protected as they are highly-visible and bad edits can cause problems for a large number of RDTs? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅, raised to template-protected. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bottoming this. I've been through every station on the RDTs I know of which were affected, performing Edit then Save, which fixed the damage. I'll also know what to do if I encounter any more. DaveDavidAHull (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Template BS-map seems to be known for this kind of behavior. Using instead routemap will fix the overflows. Pldx1 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By "overflows", means pages that have hit the template limits and so ended up in . This was not the case here, it was an inexperienced user making test edits on live templates, and in particular, not cleaning up their own breakages. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Probably should have let you all know earlier here rather than on Template talk:BS-map, but I have updated both BS-map and the legacy BS trio to the new Routemap styling. I have been quite careful in preserving the layout of all current templates, so nothing should have broken, but if you find that something's broken, ping me, or leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)