This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Before making icon requests, please check the Catalog of pictograms or Tuvalkin’s index to BSicons as it may already exist. If the required icons are not available, please make your request at Commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests. | ||
|
Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 UK Road
- 2 Mobile view (edit request)
- 3 {{BStext}} functionality in {{Routemap}}
- 4 Template:Caledonian Sleeper RDTs
- 5 RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format
- 5.1 Background
- 5.2 1. Converting all diagrams regardless of format
- 5.3 2. Diagrams using {{Railway line header}} and/or {{BS-table}}
- 5.4 3. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a double-sidebar layout
- 5.5 4. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a collapsible section
- 5.6 5. The documentation
- 5.7 RfC discussion
- 5.8 {{RDTr}}
UK Road
When editing Template:Crossrail RDT User:Bazza 7 has reverted has reverted use of the { { UK road|M25 } } template as shown here in Wikipedia:Route diagram template#UK Road "This template displays a small icon with an appropriate link for A and B roads and Motorways in Great Britain". User:Bazza 7 is correclty citing Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. " . Which is correct? It is Wikipedia:Route diagram template that is in error here? Thanks BRIANTIST (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{UK road}} or any similar templates are not part of the Route Diagram Template project and should only be used when it outweighs the benefit of using text, such as infobox title or dedicated list of UK roads. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also please note that Template:Crossrail RDT is a rail diagram, any roads should be kept to a minimum, and the use of
{{UK road}}
icons is a visual distraction drawing attention away from the primary features - these are the railway lines and stations. This has been discussed several times, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 35#Road numbers in RDTs. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also please note that Template:Crossrail RDT is a rail diagram, any roads should be kept to a minimum, and the use of
- (copied from Template_talk:Crossrail_RDT#Isn.27t_right_here.3F) The MoS is very clear, and gives good reasons why. I would go for accessibility (especially as the image doesn't have a usable "alt" attribute) and textual indexing over the needs of diagram template. There are occasions (such as tube line symbols) where space dictates otherwise, but in the case of roads, M25 and M25 motorway are not too different size-wise than . I have seen a good compromise for B-roads (such as B123 ) but it's not available for other classes. I'd support using that style for other road classes should it become available. Reinstating the image was a bit premature as I'd given a good reason for reverting your edit, but I will delay reverting again in case there's more discussion.
- I've been working on revised code so that A and M roads behave in the same manner as B roads, but am hung up on two issues:
- being able to correctly place the motorway symbol as a graphic; and
- finding either a table or an algorithm for determining which A roads use yellow on green and which are black and white .
Useddenim (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Useddenim the Green/Yellow combinations is used when a road is a Trunk Route. Some A-roads are 100% trunks, others are sometimes. You can't look it up AFAIK. BRIANTIST (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Roads in the United Kingdom#Primary destinations BRIANTIST (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- A-roads are divided into three groups: Trunk, Primary and the rest. Trunk and Primary A-roads get the green/yellow signs; the rest of the A-roads get white/black. On an Ordnance Survey map, the Trunk and Primary A-roads are marked in green; the rest of the A-roads are marked in magenta. Any given A-road number may belong to more than one of these three groups at different parts of its length. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- See Roads in the United Kingdom#Primary destinations BRIANTIST (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The motorway symbol is so small it's blurry at that size: I would ignore it. There is no algorithm other than a look-up table, which would require updating periodically as roads' statuses change from time to time. On reflection of my comment above, and observations made by other contributors, I'm now thinking that this is a development to be avoided, and text-only should be the norm for all non-rail items in the RDT description column(s). Bazza (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've been working on revised code so that A and M roads behave in the same manner as B roads, but am hung up on two issues:
- The discussion which Redrose64 gives above supports this view. Bazza (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Mobile view (edit request)
As a fix to the issue with RDTs on mobile view, please can {{BS-overlap}} be edited like this diff in the sandbox? Thanks :D fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- The "padding:0" part looks good. The "!important"s seem to be unnecessary, and can probably be reduced to "border:0; padding:0;" so they don't clobber user CSS. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to inform you that, even with
!important
, the default table cell padding of mobile view can't be overridden no matter what: same RDT map with BS-overlap/sandbox and BS-overlap under mobile view. You may ask @Edokter and Mr. Stradivarius the rationale for the compulsory padding. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- I don't think I've been involved with this one. Which compulsory padding are you talking about? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Edokter and Mr. Stradivarius: Precisely it's because of the
"bs-overlap"
class in {{BS-overlap}} which inherits".content table.infobox td"
and mandates"padding: .2em"
under mobile view. I honestly have no idea where all these CSS classes locate under the mediawiki namespace. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- @Sameboat: I don't know... It worked for Module:Routemap (although it took a lot more than just one
padding: 0 !important
); except that in narrow windows (i.e. on most smartphones) all of the icons are left-aligned so they don't match up, and collapsing doesn't work. You might also need to modify some of the Superimpose templates. (Maybe change Mediawiki:Common.css and whatever the mobile CSS is?) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - Also I think Edokter retired after his Main Page RFC, so it's probably best not to ping him. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Routemap doesn't use "bs-overlap" class hence it works for Routemap RDTs. If admins refuse to help, it just give us an extremely good reason to convert all remaining RDTs from BS-map to Routemap. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No objection to that. Useddenim (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat, Jc86035, and Matt Fitzpatrick: This is starting to look like a request to update MediaWiki:Mobile.css. If that's the case, this request should perhaps be toggled...? It currently looks a bit unclear whether a change here will solve the mobile problem. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. This request can be closed now because there is a fix I've tested in {{BS-map/sandbox}} which just avoids infobox class altogether. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Avoiding the infobox class would make sense - while route maps are often seen in the top-right corner of articles, they aren't the same thing as infoboxes. If you want specific styles for them, we can always style another class in MediaWiki:Common.css and/or MediaWiki:Mobile.css. Just ask. :) I've closed the request, but feel free to reopen it if necessary. Also, there's no problem with you closing requests yourself if they don't need implementing any more. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr. Stradivarius and Andy M. Wang: Please see Template:BS-map/testcases on mobile view. When the diagram is placed inside another infobox (usually {{infobox railway line}}), a very common practice, the
padding: .2em
again affects the diagram cellpadding. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- @Sameboat: I see another problem with the mobile view in that the number "2" is not larger in the sandbox version, but is in the live version. Don't know if that was intentional. If we are still experiencing problems with {{BS-map}}, I honestly suggest an update to the csses mentioned above. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr. Stradivarius and Andy M. Wang: Please see Template:BS-map/testcases on mobile view. When the diagram is placed inside another infobox (usually {{infobox railway line}}), a very common practice, the
- Avoiding the infobox class would make sense - while route maps are often seen in the top-right corner of articles, they aren't the same thing as infoboxes. If you want specific styles for them, we can always style another class in MediaWiki:Common.css and/or MediaWiki:Mobile.css. Just ask. :) I've closed the request, but feel free to reopen it if necessary. Also, there's no problem with you closing requests yourself if they don't need implementing any more. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. This request can be closed now because there is a fix I've tested in {{BS-map/sandbox}} which just avoids infobox class altogether. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat, Jc86035, and Matt Fitzpatrick: This is starting to look like a request to update MediaWiki:Mobile.css. If that's the case, this request should perhaps be toggled...? It currently looks a bit unclear whether a change here will solve the mobile problem. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No objection to that. Useddenim (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Routemap doesn't use "bs-overlap" class hence it works for Routemap RDTs. If admins refuse to help, it just give us an extremely good reason to convert all remaining RDTs from BS-map to Routemap. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat: I don't know... It worked for Module:Routemap (although it took a lot more than just one
- @Edokter and Mr. Stradivarius: Precisely it's because of the
- I don't think I've been involved with this one. Which compulsory padding are you talking about? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Previously I added "font-size:90%" to mimic infobox class in the sandbox version and then {{infobox railway line}} imposed another "font-size:90%" via the actual infobox class. In the live version the repeated infobox classes don't stack the font-size factors multiplicatively. I fixed it by voiding the initial "font-size:90%" when "inline" parameter is active.
Now the actual classes which mandate padding: .2em
comes from .content table.infobox
as I check with the "inspect elements" function of my browser. These CSS classes don't present on desktop view, so I have no idea where to make the request for reversing the damage caused by these classes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat: I made some reasonable syncs of various live templates and sandbox calls for {{BS3-startCollapsible}} and {{BS3}}. Can you check Template:BS&WR route map/sandbox in mobile view and see if the issue has changed?
- (Also, how sure are you that the original suggested change will not solve the problem? Sorry I still don't have enough context to tell where you arrived at that conclusion.)
- As for the issue you might still be seeing, the only recent change to MediaWiki:Common.css is Special:Diff/728892313, which doesn't remotely look relevant. There hasn't been anything recent at MediaWiki:Mobile.css or Module:Infobox. The
padding: 0.2em
is coming from MediaWiki:Common.css (search.infobox
), and looks like it's been there for a while. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent padding at MediaWiki:Mobile.css for.infobox
. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)- LOL. I didn't see that BS3/sandbox used live BS-overlap instead of the sandbox version. So yes, the edit request of BS-overlap should be reopened. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I had a prejudice that !important wouldn't work because few years ago it indeed didn't work against mobile view class and then most participants just gave up on RDT on mobile view. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "border: 0; padding: 0;" still looks fine to me in mobile view. "!important" still appears unnecessary. I don't see any "!important" border or padding declarations applied, so "border: 0; padding: 0;" gets priority because it's inline. Also, "!important" on an inline style is rarely — if ever — a good idea. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Ping if there are any issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Re
!important
- what Matt Fitzpatrick said. The thing about!important
is that it artificially increases the specificity of a CSS declaration - but a declaration applied through astyle=
attribute always has higher specificity than any declarations applied through style sheets, whether those declarations have selectors that match particular elements, classes, ids or some combination of those. See Selectors Level 3, 9. Calculating a selector's specificity, last line, which refers back to Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 6.4.3 Calculating a selector's specificity. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Re
- Done. Ping if there are any issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat: This edit is having adverse effects - RDTs are now sitting just to the left of infoboxes, instead of below them, and so are crushing the opening sections of articles like Monkton Combe Halt railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Forgot to add "clear" attribute. This should fix its behavior in most articles. Now you can use "float" parameter to align the template to left or center without the "wrapped by another table" hack. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
{{BStext}} functionality in {{Routemap}}
Example (sandbox)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
(pinging Sameboat, Useddenim) I've added the functionality of the BStext series of templates to Module:Routemap/sandbox; {{BS4text|A|B|C|D}}
= *A\*B\*C\*D
. In addition, because the text formatting is confined to a single cell, text can be in the same row as icons, and can also be overlaid over icons (and vice versa). (Widths of d, b, c and cd can be added before the asterisk.) Comments? (Is this intuitive/simple enough, and should the asterisk be changed to something else?) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Brilliant! Potentially saved lot of unnecessary icons with text to be created. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Any way of adding bold and italic options? Useddenim (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Couldn't be simpler than using the usual wiki markup of bold or italic and you can add span style even though it's slightly complicating. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat and Useddenim: For the whole row, we could add it to the
~~bg=#123abc
of the fifth tilde, apace-separated like HTML attributes (i=1, b=1 like BSsplit). Maybe also a--bg=#abc colour=#fff i=1 align=r valign=top
for individual icons, text cells and overlays as well. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Sameboat and Useddenim: For the whole row, we could add it to the
- Couldn't be simpler than using the usual wiki markup of bold or italic and you can add span style even though it's slightly complicating. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Example 2 (sandbox)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@Useddenim and Sameboat: It's now mostly done; align
, bg
, color
b
, i
, nowrap
and style
are now supported parameters for basically everything. (Parameters are separated by ,
and are marked to the left – after the icon name, or text – by !_
for a whole cell or __
for one layer of an overlapping stack.) Below, the valid values for align
are to the right of the equals signs; the resulting vertical and horizontal formatting (respectively) for the values is to the left.
{
['inherit-left'] = {'l', 'left',},
['inherit-right'] = {'r', 'right',},
['top-inherit'] = {'a', 't', 'top',},
['bottom-inherit'] = {'e', 'b', 'bottom',},
['top-left'] = {'la', 'tl', 'c4', 'nw', 'top-left', 'topleft',},
['top-right'] = {'ra', 'tr', 'c1', 'ne', 'top-right', 'topright',},
['bottom-left'] = {'le', 'bl', 'c3', 'sw', 'bottom-left', 'bottomleft',},
['bottom-right'] = {'re', 'br', 'c2', 'se', 'bottom-right', 'bottomright',},
['inherit-center'] = {'c', 'center', 'centre',},
['middle-inherit'] = {'m', 'middle',},
['top-center'] = {'ma', 'tc', 'top-center', 'top-centre', 'topcenter', 'topcentre',},
['bottom-center'] = {'me', 'bc', 'bottom-center', 'bottom-centre', 'bottomcenter', 'bottomcentre',},
['middle-left'] = {'lm', 'ml', 'middle-left', 'middleleft',},
['middle-right'] = {'rm', 'mr', 'middle-right', 'middleright',},
['middle-center'] = {'cm', 'mc', 'middle-center', 'middle-centre', 'middlecenter', 'middlecentre',},
}
There are still display issues when text cells get too wide or too tall (and style
doesn't really have a purpose so far), but it's good enough to replace the BStext templates and num
icons (sans the compasses) entirely.
Incidentally, {{rmr}} and {{rmri}} have also been implemented (by Sameboat) in Module:Routemap/sandbox; the sandbox version of rmri is used above. I modified it so that if the first parameter is empty then the icon is automatically small (name, link are moved to 2 and 3). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Just so you know that now the sandbox version no longer shows popup tooltip for overlaid icon cell... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Useddenim and Sameboat: I've added the text/parameter functionality (and used it on {{Acton Town tube station}} and {{Ealing Broadway station}}), although the documentation has yet to be updated and the BStext templates can't be substituted yet. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Added converting BStext markup to Routemap version in the sandbox. (The regex of Notepad++ is terrifyingly different to Lua...) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Template:Caledonian Sleeper RDTs
Hi there,
I'm having a bit of trouble with Template:Caledonian Sleeper RDTs, which on Chrome 52.0.2743 looks a bit weird; however, it looks fine in IE. Any thoughts? jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this seems to be an issue with Chrome's dynamic table width handling[1]. I suspect adding
table-layout:fixed
and then give every BS#-startCollapsible row atw
value would fix it. Problem is BS#-startCollapsible row templates don't have tw parameter and would take some time to experiment how to get it right, a design overlook I admit. The instant solution is converting the whole map into {{Routemap}} by convertbs and then settw=,250,100
solely for the Routemap template itself instead of every icon row which I have done it for you because it involves further tweaking of the map markups. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format
Under what conditions should route diagram templates (RDTs) in the {{BS-map}} or {{BS-table}} formats be converted to the newer Lua-based {{Routemap}} format, which is generally less resource-intensive, loads more quickly and contains some extra features compared to {{BS-map}}? —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Background
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)
1A. Support
- Tentative support. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support. One may argue that Wikimedia server load isn't of our concern, articles transcluding large legacy RDTs occasionally appear in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Also many readers still have bandwidth cap. The lesser data transferred the better nonetheless. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:30, 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{{BS7-2|||HST|STR|STR|eABZlf|exKBHFr||{{rws|Strood (1st)}}(Old terminus)|{{rws|Cuxton}} }}
{{rws|Cuxton}} ~~ ~~ ! !\\HST\STR\STR\eABZlf\exKBHFr~~{{rws|Strood (1st)}}(Old terminus)
{{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)
- @SMcCandlish: The point about CS1 is that people can still use
- 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: 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)
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)
- Comment I do not believe the above "1B" heading accurately describes how WP works, and seems to be a WP:OWN / WP:VESTED / WP:FILIBUSTER / WP:STONEWALL incitement. Pinging editors who have !voted in that section: Redrose64 Pppery. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:29, 30 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. Pppery 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Diagrams using {{Railway line header}} and/or {{BS-table}}
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)
2A. Support
- Support, as the creator of the RfC. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above; we do not retain redundant templates, per standard WP:TFD procedure. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
2B. Oppose
- Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. What problems are being caused by the retention of these templates? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per my oppose of option 1. Pppery (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Redrose64. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:39, 2 September 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)
- @Mjroots: BStable is deprecated in favor of {{BS-map}}, which uses the same syntax for rendering the RDT, just with a different header. Pppery 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I meant BSmap. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Then why is this !vote in section two, rather than section one. Pppery 18:58, 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)
- @Mjroots: BStable is deprecated in favor of {{BS-map}}, which uses the same syntax for rendering the RDT, just with a different header. Pppery 18:52, 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)
3A. Support (for all double-sided templates)
- Support, as the creator of the RfC. Welcome to option B as well. 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)
3B. Support (for double-sided templates which need the missing text fields)
3C. Oppose
- 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)
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)
4B. Oppose
- Oppose we should not be justifying something based on browser-specfic hacks. Pppery (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pppery: All Chrome users should kiss themselves because they deserve it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
5. The documentation
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)
5A. Support
- Support. This would make things a bit less confusing for newcomers. 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)
5B. Oppose
- 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)
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:
{{<Template name> |left-text1= |left-text2= |left-text3= ...etc... |left-icon1= |left-icon1-overlay1= |left-icon1-overlay2= ...etc... |left-icon2= |left-icon3= ...etc... |right-icon1= |right-icon1-overlay1= |right-icon1-overlay2= ...etc... |right-icon2= |right-icon3= ...etc... |right-text1= |right-text2= |right-text3= ...etc... }}
from which the lua module can extract the info it needs to build that row of the RDT - Evad37 [talk] 01:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @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)
- (I don't think there are any left-icons and right-icons, just icons. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:17, 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).
- Okay, just
|icon#=
and|icon#-overlayn=
then (like I said above, I'm not that familiar with RDTs) - Evad37 [talk] 07:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree with Evad37. Also, all of the icons should be renamed instead of having these completely meaningless IDs. Pppery (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Make a formal proposal at Commons:Talk:BSicon/Renaming. (You do realize that this would involve more than 6,000 files, don’t you?) Useddenim (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- fr:WP has, in fact, created local redirects for the more-frequently used BSicons at fr:WP:Modèles/BS/Catalogue des icônes francophones («Catalogue of French icons»). Useddenim (talk) 22:03, 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)
- fr:WP has, in fact, created local redirects for the more-frequently used BSicons at fr:WP:Modèles/BS/Catalogue des icônes francophones («Catalogue of French icons»). Useddenim (talk) 22:03, 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)
- 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)
- Yes. This ↑ --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
-
{{RDTr}}
@IJBall, Sameboat, Useddenim, Pppery, Redrose64, SMcCandlish, and Lamberhurst: I've tried making a Routemap row wrapper that functions similarly to the usual {{BSrow}}-based templates:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- 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.
- The usual limitations regarding mixing unnamed (
- 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.
- Row parameters:
- 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)
- Looks good! Useddenim (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Pinging again, because I'm not entirely sure if Echo worked. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:31, 3 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)
- Just noticed a (potential) problem: Currently,
|L1=
,|L2=
etc. are used to assign links to the icons in the {{BSrow}} template. Useddenim (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just noticed a (potential) problem: Currently,
- 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)
- @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
- 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)
- @Jc86035: Thanks; this seems like a workable solution. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)