Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 9

Route Diagram Templates

 * is apparently embarking on a crusade to delete nominated for deletion some RDTs that are only used on single pages&#58; WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20. Useddenim (talk) 23&#58;06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really not. I'm removing around 100 old transclusions of Railway line header (center). Upon encountering a couple single-use templates (the first of which confused me for a good 10 minutes before I figured out what was going on...), I TfD'd them, as is typical. Single-use templates are almost never kept at TfD. My confusion is exactly why storing article content in templates is generally not done, and I'm an experienced editor. Imagine what the newbies suffer through. ~ RobTalk 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think RDTs which are small or simple like Salvador Metro Map can be merged into the article. I do prefer separate RDT page when it is bigger or more complicated like Crossrail RDT to reduce article page size. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you! Despite what this message is implying, I am most certainly not a deletionist. I just nominated a few of the more tiny templates I saw while doing a separate maintenance task (a replacement of the long-deprecated Railway line header (center) with the modern Routemap). Basically, I'm trying to balance the benefit of not overwhelming the source code with the cost of the extra barrier to editing the text within each "template". For the tiny things, the cost outweigh the benefits. For the gigantic ones, I don't think you'd find any sane editor in favor of throwing those in the articles. ~ RobTalk 01:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a side note, you may want to navigate to the TfD above and provide your opinion there. The closer will not be aware of this discussion, and only opinions expressed on the actual TfD page are likely to be considered when determining consensus. ~ RobTalk 01:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up to that last comment, can we please keep discussion in one place, per WP:MULTI. There is a parallel thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways (which begins with the same two posts) and as that one is somewhat longer, please could Sameboat - 同舟 and Rob move their responses to that other thread. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the topic, I think this is the place they should be consolidated. Thoughts, Rob? Useddenim (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No preference. The discussion on these specific templates really belongs at TFD, of course.~ RobTalk 11:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

is rather embarked on a crusade to replace full size BS-map listings by routemap listings. The last batch was involving a hundredth of maps, either inside an article page or inside a separate template. And this campaign rolls not only inside main space, but also in user space and in archives. Here, replacing Railway line header (center) or dealing with some specific templates, rather appears as a "just cause" for a further aim. Pldx1 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who would have guessed that trains would make up one of the most contentious areas on the project that I'd accidentally stepped into? I've already responded to you on my talk page explaining why I replaced as I did. Cheers. ~ RobTalk 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Salvador Metro Map
Single use wrapper. Clearly not complicated enough to warrant a template even if you're persuaded by "too complicated for the mainspace" arguments. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Salvador Metro Map


 * Keep Oppose – a second line is supposed to open in the next year or two. It's on my 'To do' list to add the second line to the template, but I'll need to do some research first – I was thinking of getting to that in the next couple of months. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. See discussions below. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per IJBall. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy or keep for now to allow for expansion, as more of a placeholder, with the option to renominate in a few months if kept and the issues are still present —PC-XT+ 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ RobTalk 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:NorthstarHiawathaCentral
Single-use wrapper, only used on a user page. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * NorthstarHiawathaCentral
 * Userfy. It seems to be intended for a future article. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to user space. As noted by Useddenim, the main article is a red link which would suggest that this was made for a future article. Since the article doesn't exist, there's no reason for this to be in mainspace. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy as not yet ready for template space without article in mainspace (could perhaps be merged with draft, at least temporarily) —PC-XT+ 06:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep See discussions below. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)
Single transclusion wrappers. ~ RobTalk 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Line 1 (Budapest Metro)
 * Line 2 (Budapest Metro)
 * Line 3 (Budapest Metro)
 * Line 4 (Budapest Metro)
 * Line 5 (Budapest Metro)
 * Keep. Discussions like this and this are why route diagrams are kept on a separate page! Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of those discussions boil down to the fact that you appear to be trying to make this content more difficult for new editors to access due to the fear that they'll break something. That's a view that fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia's basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy. How are new editors to learn if we intentionally hide away bits of content? ~ RobTalk 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. A single mis-typed character can easily break a template. WP:Sandboxes are for learning. There's no way I (or any other editor) can watch every single Route Diagram, and a broken diagram is not only useless, but if not transcluded can also affect content on the parent page. So unless you intend to patrol every single page that contains an RDT, I suggest you abandon this crusade against “Single use wrapper”s. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I'm on no such crusade. I nominated some of the tiny templates that clearly do not overwhelm source page content. The dangers of someone breaking a route diagram are no larger than the dangers of someone breaking an infobox assuming editors use common sense and don't mess with the syntax they don't know anything about. Any sensible editor wouldn't mess with the codes themselves, but they absolutely should be able to edit the text (station names, etc) just like any other article content without an extra barrier. See WP:Protection policy for an actual policy that details how infrequently we should implement such barriers to editing. ~ RobTalk 01:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Using these as templates instead of keeping them on the main page helps keep the page uncluttered with BSicon syntax that most don't understand. It just makes the page so much easier to edit this way. I have made three templates today in use on Wilson station (CTA) for that very reason instead of dumping all of that code onto the page. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – as per the arguments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – as per the arguments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can see both sides. While there is a strong precedent against most single-use templates, there are also exceptions. The line is rather gray, but if they are in use for a reason, we tend to apply WP:IAR. Eventually, the line often becomes more clear. Some templates naturally merge into the article. Others become clearly separate, as merge problems become more apparent. Due to the keeps here, I would probably say keep for now, and renominate later if there are still issues —PC-XT+ 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to know the keeps came about largely after a canvassing message was placed on a few talk pages claiming that I was conducting a "crusade" against all single-use route maps. Actual volume of votes here will be unfortunately misleading due to the fairly blatant campaigning. I've since attempted to assure some people that I'm only nominating a few of the smaller and less obnoxious ones that I've come across, and not the monstrosities that clearly would overwhelm the source code if merged into the article, but I didn't get to do that prior to a bunch of pile-on keeps as a result of the campaigning. ~ RobTalk 02:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in my case – I followed your Talk page notice back here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't mean to lump you in there. You and Useddenim received notices as the creators for the two nominations. The rest I assume came via the canvassing. ~ RobTalk 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is necessarily "canvasing" (though the notice there certainly could have been more neutrally worded) – but WikiProject Trains would naturally be interested in these kinds of discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The post to Trains isn't the issue. Characterizing me as a crusading deletionist is. As is the post he made at User talk:Lost on Belmont, which is undoubtably canvassing, not to mention blatantly uncivil. ~ RobTalk 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Useddenim or his motivations, however I don't see that notifying a few other editors in wikiproject BSicon is exactly canvassing, although I do see why it would certainly raise eyebrows on your part. The templates you've nominated bear certain similarities to a number of unused templates I've made for the Chicago "L" system. I will admit that it is entirely possible that he "raised the alarm" to help get votes to protect "his" stuff, but at the same time it could be that he is notifying users in case of a slippery slope situation and to be aware of the general situation with BSicons. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Not only because the used code is easy to break and hard to fix or edit, but also because separate templates allow the RTD to be used in multiple articles. (Rob, if you care for Wikipedia’s basic "Everyone can edit" philosophy, for which I do, too, then better retarget your attcks on VisualEditor: That is digging a deep trench between a caste of editors who can use wiki codes and those who cannot, instead of elevating all.) Tuvalkin (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The undo button makes a mistake remarkably easy to fix. These are nominated specifically because they are not used in multiple articles, and I would have no issue with them if they were. And trust me, I'm no fan of VisualEditor. ~ RobTalk 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was a bit strong in characterizing the nominations as “a crusade” (but Salvador Metro Map and NorthstarHiawathaCentral did show up within a few minutes of each other, and I thought it was the beginning of a wave, based on the previous nomination). However, I still feel strongly that RDTs should be kept separate for two main reasons: Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It’s (unfortunately) remarkable the number of editors who do not use the  button and then won’t undo their mistakes. And (IMHO) many of the small hard-coded diagrams seem to be on infrequently-viewed pages, making the likelihood of a more-experienced editor stumbling across them to fix the error much lower.
 * 2) Consistency. Need I say more?
 * Here are my thoughts on those points:
 * Editors not checking their edits is a problem. I'm not sure this is the best solution, but I'm willing to consider it, at least for certain cases.
 * I am generally a fan of consistency, but it could be argued both ways, here: Consistency among single-use templates on the wiki in general is part of the reason for nomination. Consistency among this kind of project template is certainly desirable. I would like to avoid pitting global and local consensus against each other, if possible, meaning I would rather not consider consistency any further in this discussion.
 * —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When I was fairly new to deletion discussions, I tried to follow the guidelines, but still left some otherwise appropriate notices with WP:CANVASS wording. Luckily, they didn't seem to influence the discussion, and nobody complained, but I was still rather embarrassed when I realized it, later. A fairly large number of templates I created/used had been nominated at once, which tends to make such slips more likely. As a nominator, I have learned that notifying project talk pages myself helps to reduce sore feelings that may be present, and a welcoming notice makes it a little easier for others to assume good faith, (though it can still take a lot of patience from everyone.) Discussion of these templates as single-use may be a sore spot for this project, but it looks like we are coming to a more cooperative stance, here, which is a good sign. Hopefully, we'll all have a productive conversation, and come away with a good feeling and better understanding. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 06:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. These maps are not issued from a random generator. There were people who wrote these maps. Part of them using BS-map. Part of them using routemap. Once written, these maps have to be maintained. And keeping them as separate entities facilitates the maintenance. This is a key property since, in the long term, these maps have to be maintained in sync with the reality. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Not interested in being involved in such an oddly contentious area. ~ RobTalk 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Consolidated from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

 * I'm really not. I'm removing around 100 old transclusions of Railway line header (center). Upon encountering a couple single-use templates (the first of which confused me for a good 10 minutes before I figured out what was going on...), I TfD'd them, as is typical. Single-use templates are almost never kept at TfD. My confusion is exactly why storing article content in templates is generally not done, and I'm an experienced editor. Imagine what the newbies suffer through. ~ RobTalk 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What the "newbies" "suffer" is an inability to edit route diagrams (which is ferociously hard) when editing the simple text of an article. This is a good thing.
 * If TfD doesn't understand single use templates, then it's TfD that needs to be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If this WikiProject's actual stance is that we should be barring newbies from even attempting to edit the text of route diagrams, then I can only point to WP:Local consensus. The philosophy of "anyone can edit" clearly is more broadly accepted than local consensus on this issue. Maybe an RfC is needed. ~ RobTalk 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that newbies should be barred from editing route diagrams; I said that they should practice in a WP:Sandbox until they know what they’re doing – a process I think we all went through. Useddenim (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that single-use RDTs makes sense. They're a giant block of pipes and strange acronyms in German - it makes little sense to put these directly in the article. Even a moderately complex one can overwhelm the plain edit text view of an article. We're not talking fairly simple template substitutions like infobox, with nice fields like ; a standard RDT contains lines such as  . RDT coding is ridiculously complex and completely obscure. Anyone who wants to change an RDT needs to know the codes, and if they can manage to look those up they are certainly capable of finding the E button on the top of the RDT. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * _I_ would be really reluctant to go near an RDT. They're downright vicious! If you don't have an intimate understanding of multi-bracket nesting and complex wikicode, then you will achieve nothing positive inside an RDT. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's more the editing of text that I'm concerned about. No sane editor would change the codes without knowing what they're all about, but the station names/numbers/mileage etc. as things open/close/change names should be editable by new editors. To be very clear, I'm not opposed with single-use templates where they're extraordinarily complicated. I've seen some that clearly warrant a template, and those I haven't nominated. It's things like the below that I take some issue with. There's clearly no issue of clutter when it comes to something like that, so the only rationale I think is left is an extra layer of difficulty to find how to edit it. This is especially to address his concerns about overwhelming pages - I absolutely have no issues with templates that would truly overwhelm the source code. It's these tiny things that seem to serve no purpose and prevent newer editors from editing article content. ~ RobTalk 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you find the established way ridiculously complex and completely obscure, you really won't like . It uses exactly the same strange acronyms in German but fitted together completely differently. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per . I can create fairly complex diagrams using BSicons, but even the simplest RDT with the new system is beyond me. Just a question of learning the system, much the same as learning how to Wikipedia in general. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can always use the newer system by writing it up how you would in the old system and then just tacking "safesubst:" on at the beginning of each of the BS2, etc. templates. The only new thing you'd need to worry about is the header, which is fairly easy. I will admit that I didn't realize this merge was as simple as just replacing the centered header with the float right one. I followed the link in the documentation at Railway line header to Routemap, figuring that the note was in the documentation because Railway line header itself was on the way out. Oh well, you live and learn. ~ RobTalk 18:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you do not know about the dispute of introducing Routemap back then. Some editors prefer the older stacking of BS row templates because those templates work just fine. I am too lazy to retrieve the old discussion from the archives. In order to settle the matter and pay respect to every participants of the RDT project, the conclusion (to my interpretation) is that existing maps should remain as is as long as template size limit is not an issue to that particular map, unless the original author prefer the Routemap markup. Otherwise I strongly recommend Routemap for any new map because dual system only confuses newcomers and there is situation that Routemap is the only answer. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sameboat pretty much has it correct, apart from the last bit. Unless there is a size issue, it should be down to the creator of a diagram to decide which system to use. Any creator of a diagram is free to change it from the old to new system if they wish to, but a diagram should not be changed against a creator's wishes. Think of it as an ENGVAR-type situation. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Consolidated from User talk:Lost on Belmont

 * In this case I get the feeling that Rob means well, but just doesn't know about all of the BS. (Ugh. No pun intended.) Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * mmm… dunno. He knows enough to convert RDTs from the archaic Railway line header, BS-header and BS-table to Routemap. Useddenim (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I acquired that knowledge through 5 minutes of reading the documentation. Perhaps a testament to how these templates do not need to be hidden away until editors learn how to find something located in the Template namespace. If there's some long history here, I'm all ears, but I'm just a humble template editor. ~ RobTalk 02:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you found them and the documentation so quickly, that seems to suggest that the templates aren't "hidden away," no? Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm an experienced template editor whose contributions are primarily in the area of closing TfDs and implementing closes at the holding cell. Contrast with a new editor who doesn't know there's anything more to Wikipedia than the mainspace (or what the word "mainspace" even means, for that matter). The difference is clear, I believe. ~ RobTalk 02:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The “smack” was aimed at the action of plunging in without adequately researching the situation. There’s got to be a reason that thousands of Route Diagrams are in separate templates instead of hard-coded into articles. No disparagement was meant to your editing skills, especially if you have the savvy to pick up the basics of RDT coding in a few minutes. (I guess the tone of my second comment could be read in more than one way.) Useddenim (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Sincerely, I am just trying to do what's best for the encyclopedia, same as you. I understand why you feel they all must be hard-coded; I very infrequently support the use of hard-coding. It's clear that RDTs are one such exception where they often get so large that hard-coding becomes necessary, and that's not something I'm disputing whatsoever. I hope that I'm getting across that I'm not the type of mindless button-pusher that swoops in and deletes templates for the sake of deleting them. God knows we have enough of those at TfD without my becoming one! Similar to how you appear to have reacted negatively to my supposed "delete everything" attitude, I reacted negatively to your "template everything" approach. Absolutes are rarely a good way to contribute to the project. I think there's a certain line before which the benefits of hard-coding are outweighed by the costs of placing them behind a barrier. The venue of TfD is admittedly not the best venue for finding that line. If I withdrew the TfDs and started a discussion about the use of hard-coded templates for RDTs in an attempt to find that line, would you be willing to participate? That's likely a much more productive use of our time than fighting over a single template that may or may not warrant deletion. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know where I'm coming from, TfD frequently encounters cabal-like behavior from isolated communities who try to override site-wide consensus with whatever their project has decided they prefer with no rationale whatsoever other than personal preference. I think I jumped too quickly to assuming you were doing the same, and I apologize for that. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a pretty good trick: I think we both managed to pull a 180 and are now in 100% agreement! I will follow your lead. Useddenim (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Documentation
Currently, both the older BS-map and the newer module-based Routemap are (I assume) supported for making new diagrams. How should the documentation at Route diagram template be updated to show this? (Currently, Routemap's documentation is located entirely at that template's page, not needing any additional templates to construct an RDT.) I would support having the Routemap syntax located above the current BS-map syntax in primarily due to its loading efficiency (and other reasons, including simpler overlay syntax, less potential for confusion due to not having a separate group of templates with left-aligned labels, etc.). (I would also remove, which has been essentially unneeded since 2011, from the page.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Useddenim (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reorganized the wp:Route diagram template page, i.e. the documentation for the BS-map template and its auxiliary templates. The result is a slightly shorter page, but not that much. In fact, my first aim was to enforce the normative character of this document. E.g. stating if n=11 is a small number or a large one (relative to naming of the Opq parameters) should be done the most clearly possible. Concerning the Routemap template, it could be useful to have a similar rewriting, and an alignment of how the two pages are presenting their contents. Some parameters at BS-map were not kept when writing routemap. It is clear that in most cases, this was the right thing to do, since these parameters were never used in the finally released maps. A discussion has been started below on this topic. As of now, this is only an informal discussion. And, moreover, I am not even sure of what is my own opinion in some cases (apart from the absolute necessity to build a very large consensus...) . Pldx1 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated diagram templates
While we're talking about the two currently-supported diagram containers, apparently the Railway line header / BS-header / BS-table combination still has more transclusions (6,340) than both BS-map (5,937) and Routemap (839), almost 5 years after the introduction of BS-map.


 * Should the diagrams using the old deprecated templates be converted to the new templates?
 * If so, should we convert them manually or automatically, and should we convert them to the older BS-map or the newer Routemap?

(Pinging Useddenim, Pldx1, Sameboat, Tuvalkin, jcc, Lost on Belmont, and BU Rob13.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As I find the &#123;&#123;Railway line header/BS-header/BS-table}} combination I change it to &#123;&#123;BS-map}} (and also move embedded diagrams onto their own pages), but that’s a lot of templates, so a bot assist would be welcome. I personally have no objection to moving completely to &#123;&#123;Routemap}} (and changing that many would certainly speed of the adoption of/conversion to the new format), but remember the shit-storm that erupted last time a wholesale change was attempted… Useddenim (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I could likely handle a convert from Railway line header --> BS-header with a bot run and/or AWB if that's what you decide you want to do. ~ RobTalk 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6340 versus 5937 versus 839. This describes what is the consensus among the writers of maps. One can even say that the consensus is BS-map systems: 12277  versus routemap system: 839. If you really want to speed up the adoption of a new system, you should rather try to convince instead of trying to enforce. Doing otherwise would only create another shit-storm, that will speed down any transition. This is an experimentally proven fact, here and anywhere else. Pldx1 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is advocating routemap here. They're advocating BS-map as a replacement for the Railway line header, which I don't see any downside to. The reason we need BS-map in addition to routemap is due to difficulty in using routemap, by my understanding. Is there a reason why we need BS-map and Railway line header? ~ RobTalk 12:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Railway line header (RLH_css) BS-header (BSh_title, BSh_template, BSh_bgcolor, BSh_font_color, BSh_width) BS-table (BSt_legend, BSt_css, BSt_align)

---

þ codes for a table pipe, i.e. equivalent to | spaces at BOL are cosmetic (to be excluded from the actual code) NOCR is a cosmetic BR (to be excluded from the actual code) ¶ is a protected template-pipe, actually coded by |

---

1 {þclass="infobox " NOCR 5 cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" NOCR 6 style="float:right; width: auto; border: 0px !important; padding:0; NOCR     7  font-size:85% !important; NOCR     8  box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR     9  -moz-box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR    10  -webkit-box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR    11  border-spacing: 0px !important;NOCR    12  " 13 !colspan="2" width= style="padding:5px; vertical-align:center;NOCR    14  color:;NOCR    15  background-color:;NOCR    16  text-align:center;"NOCR 17 þ 20 þ- 21 þ colspan="2" align=""NOCR 22 þ NOCR 23                                                                38  {|cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin:5px; background:transparent; line-height:1.2; text-align:left; font-size:110%; " class="nogrid" 39 YOUR_MAP_HERE

40 |}                                                                                                                     41  |}

þ codes for a table pipe, i.e. equivalent to | spaces at BOL are cosmetic (to be excluded from the actual code) NOCR is a cosmetic BR (to be excluded from the actual code) ¶ is a protected template-pipe, actually coded by |

---

1	{þ class=" NOCR    2	" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 NOCR   ******** should be "0", not 0 17	style="width: ; border: 0px !important; padding:0; NOCR   18	box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR    19	-moz-box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR    20	-webkit-box-shadow: 0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14), 0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.12), 0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); NOCR    21	border-spacing: 0px !important;NOCR    22	; NOCR    23	" 24	þ- 25	   48	þ- 49	   55	þ- 56	   73	þ- 74	   84	    88	þ}

Let YOUR_MAP_HERE be the stack of the BSn or BSn-2 that describes the rows of the map. If we compare Railway line Header + BS-header + BS-table with BS-map, we can see that, most of the time, this will give the same result. But one can also see that some details are different. There is a reason why protected descriptions of parameters are used: we are not really sure of the compliance of all the browsers with the HTML specifications, nor of the various *.css with their descriptions. Remember the two examples encountered recently: right align inside a Right_Text cell and collapsible-2 for routemap. Checking each of the 6340 maps... ohlala. But I agree to say in the documentation that anyone who takes the burden of modifying the internal structure of a map should also try to change Railway line Header + BS-header + BS-table into BS-map (and check carefully what happens, and solve the resulting problems, if any, and don't create any shit-storm, and don't postpone any progress by creating distrust instead of confidence: peace is a fragile construction). Pldx1 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Visual separator"
Why should the Box Drawing character ┃ be used as a visual separator instead of the broken vertical bar ¦  or even just the normal vertical bar | as the XML code  ? —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? Some years ago I was the one who suggested using the broken vertical bar ¦, but it never garnered much of a following, so I decided to be bold and change it to something that looks identical (or nearly so) to what people insist on using, without the possibility of accidentally breaking diagrams’ coding. Useddenim (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)