Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template

RfC: deprecation of BS-map (result: BS-map to be deprecated)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus in favor of {{routemap}}. There is a consensus in favor of replacing all BS-maps with Routemaps.
While ultimately the usage for constructing the maps is subjective to the editor, and was the theme for much of the earlier comments in the RFC, the community would stand to benefit much more from a defined standard. As has been stated many times before, consensus is not a vote, and the strongest arguments seem to favor BS-Map's deprecation. The arguments I find to be the most strong are the accessibility issues of BS-Map on mobile platforms which Routemap seems to improve, as well as less so memory usage, which reducing such can definitely help accessibility. Overall, Existing BS-Maps should be converted into Routemaps, and the BS-Map template should ultimately be deprecated as requested for comment per the title. In my personal opinion, I would recommend that BS-map's code be retained and archived for historical reference, especially for any potential debugs, but its time for mass service to Wikipedia has come and gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvadingInvader (talk • contribs)

---

Should all instances of {{BS-map}} be converted to {{Routemap}}? Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Background

{{Routemap}} is a Lua-based reimplementation of {{BS-map}} and related templates. It was originally introduced in 2015. There have been two prior RfCs and one TfD on the question of replacing BS-map:

• 2015: Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 8#RFC
• 2016: Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format
• 2019: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Template:BS-map

At the time of the 2016 RfC there were approximately 12,000 template-style routemaps using either {{BS-table}} or {{BS-map}}. BS-table and {{railway line header}} have since been deprecated and deleted and BS-map has 3,335 transclusions while {{Routemap}} has 22,442. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Strongly support — BS-maps are much less flexible than routemaps and the syntax in the former is horrendously complicated, making any upkeep or new additions very cumbersome. Routemap fixed some display issues that BS-maps has in certain browsers. BS-maps require several related templates to make the thing work, while routemap doesn't; it's just a simpler way of accomplishing better results. -MJ (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow...BS-maps is a lot more broken than I thought. This is how a template displays on mobile. [1] (link leads to screenshot from a mobile device) This isn't acceptable. -107.122.189.94 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose {{BS-map}} uses normal template syntax, and the markup may easily be traced through. I find the {{routemap}} syntax to be cryptic (the syntax, with all those double tildes and double slashes, is not used in any other part of Wikipedia) to the point of not being understandable, which makes these RDTs unmaintainable. I need to put in edit requests (example), and I should not need to do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no sympathy for a computer programmer who refuses to learn a new language (that isn't particularly difficult). Useddenim (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Please do be civil. The habits and preferences of editors are important to factors to respect. Some editors prefer to use one interface over another, in a similar way to how some editors prefer to use the source editor instead of the visual editor or to how some editors prefer to edit German Wikipedia over English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, in fact, a multilingual organisation, and as such we ought to be sympathetic to editors whose established markup languages are different to ours. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 10:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support — I've used both and find {{Routemap}} much more intuitive to use, particularly for overlays and diagrams with varying widths. It's also more likely to produce diagrams which work on mobile devices. Bazza (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - BS map is much easier to create diagrams with. It should be creator's choice which system is used. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Given the documented problems with BS-map, including memory usage and mobile display, I can't see maintaining two separate templates with different syntaxes based entirely on editor preference. The community spoke long ago on which it preferred, and which it finds easier to use. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Our first priority is to our readers, and the performance issues and the severe mobile display issues with BS-map mean that it isn't good for readers. From a community perspective, I fully agree with Mackensen's statement. I understand that routemap has a learning curve, but it is ultimately a vastly superior backend for RDTs. The implementation of Redrose64's edit request is a good example of that: an arbitrary number of icons can be layered in routemap using the same !~ separator, while it requires a whole set of new parameters in BS-map. As someone who is fluent in both routemap and BS-map, I actually find routemap much more intuitive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral, as I never make that type of templates. But quite often I come across route templates with links to disambiguation pages that are technically hard to solve, even when you know the answer. So I opt for the one that makes those links the most easy to fix. The Banner talk 18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else. It only makes sense that we deprecate BS-maps given its performance and mobile display issues. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Whatever style of templates the community picks, there should never be more than one. That makes it harder for everyone - for new editors and for experienced editors. And this is also not a question of personal preference as this isn't how an editor likes to style their own user page, but about reader facing articles and images. Currently, BS-map has 3,324 transclusions while Routemap has 22,463. It's quite clear what the community has chosen. Lets finish with this replacement (the lovely editors watching at WP:TFD/H are always happy to help with these sort of things). --Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently there is even a third style used for German roads (Wikipedia:Autobahn infobox template) Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing whatsoever has changed since 2016 other than people converting maps anyway despite that consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Pppery that's a strong accusation, and the 2016 consensus wasn't that conversions were improper per se, it was that (effectively) a conversion should not take place against the wishes of the principal maintainer(s) of the template. For example, if I'm the principal maintainer of Template:Foo, and I want to use Routemap instead of BS-map, that's perfectly fine under the 2016 and 2019 discussions. It would be strange if that's not fine. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fine, perhaps I spoke too harshly. We know that that isn't always what happened, because of User talk:Mjdestroyerofworlds#RDT conversions, and I would still oppose anyway because I see this as ratifying a fait accompli, although this was of course done in good faith. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  A neutral question: Is it really true that Nothing whatsoever has changed since 2016? It appears that the the percentage of mobile views has increased from about 35% to about 55% between 2016 and 2023, and if these BS-* templates work poorly on mobile (the *startCollapsible templates are certainly broken), then moving away from them might help these increasingly prevalent mobile viewers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support, as an editor who is fully conversant with both styles. Useddenim (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral I never make route templates, but fix links to disambiguation pages in those templates. I opt for the one that makes it most easy to fix those. The Banner talk 11:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: is there a way of producing a new interface for the same routemap module? If there were a technical way of using a template-wizard-like interface so that the tables could be semi-visual to make and edit, I think that it would make things easier for both new editors and those familiar with BSmap templates. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• support, the new system is less complicated in terms of templates and more flexible in terms of output. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed at Template talk:Los Angeles Metro Rail lines

I posted about some assistance I need on a template here. If anyone can help, I would really appreciate it. Thank you so much! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Need help

Edmonton LRT
CN Lines Clareview Highway 15 50 Street 137 Avenue D.L. MacDonald Yard Belvedere CN Lines Highway 16 Yellowhead Trail Wayne Gretzky Drive Coliseum To Blatchford (2024) 118 Avenue NAIT CN Spur End Kingsway/​Royal Alex Stadium MacEwan To Lewis Farms (2028) 102 Street Churchill Quarters Central Bay/Enterprise Square Tawatinâ Bridge over North Saskatchewan River Corona Muttart Government Centre Strathearn Dudley B. Menzies Bridge over North Saskatchewan River Holyrood University Bonnie Doon Health Sciences/Jubilee Avonmore McKernan/​Belgravia Mill Creek Belgravia Road Davies South Campus/ Fort Edmonton Park 75 Street 111 Street southbound lane Gerry Wright OMF Southgate Highway 14 Whitemud Drive Highway 2 Whitemud Drive Millbourne/​Woodvale Century Park Grey Nuns Mill Woods
Key
Capital Line Metro Line Valley Line

Hi! I just need some help with this template. My goal here is to use the blue shade #0078BE for all of the Capital Line. While I have already changed some of it and uploaded a few of my own files, I'm not really sure how to make the parallel icons which include both the red shades #EF161E and #be2d2c that certain shade of blue, since they are both one file and I don't know where to upload these new files and under what names; perhaps under a new file set? If anyone has any idea, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to use icons which are non-standard. See c:BSicon/Catalogue for what is available as standard. There are also some sets of coloured icons available which you could use for overlays.

Please remember that colour alone is insufficient to impart information. Bazza (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Wondering if possible to overlay broad icon

Hi! I was wondering if it would even be possible to overlay  (bvISLAND) at Template:Red Line (Washington Metro) at Fort Totten given the already complex constraints on that column? I figured out how to get it to work at both Takoma and Brookland-CUA, but this is a very complex task out of my skill level. Thanks! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: You probably can, but messily (= harder to maintain).

Medical Center Bethesda Silver Spring MD DC Friendship Heights Takoma MD DC Tenleytown–AU to Greenbelt Van Ness–UDC Fort Totten Cleveland Park Brookland–CUA Woodley Park Rhode Island Avenue

I have encountered similar conundrums of my own and ended up remembering that these are route diagrams, not necessarily accurate track plans. There is a similar layout at {{District line simple RDT}}, where two non-stop Piccadilly line tracks are in the centre, with stopping District line tracks on the outside. (See Ravenscourt Park tube station for a description.) The diagram, though, simply shows a non-stop route alongside a stopping route, with branches and divergences as appropriate. Bazza (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Track layout templates

Moved from User talk:Useddenim/Archive 11

Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate any Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." How does moving track layouts for a single station to a template not violate this? Most of these templates have no chance of being used on more than one page. Steelkamp (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: This question keeps coming up every few years, and the consensus is always the same: because of their nature (a highly technical markup language) and the fact that a single incorrect character can cause an entire page to blow up, it is best to keep them separated from the rest of the article. Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 9#Route Diagram Templates is only one of the discussions. Useddenim (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, by being stand-alone templates, it helps with categorization by not being dependent on the parent article. Useddenim (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Useddenim. There's long-standing consensus at TfD that RDTs do not violate the guideline. Consensus can change of course, but this has actually come up several times; it's not a case of a long-standing issue flying under the radar. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wonder if there can be a noinclude banner at the top of the template page stating this and pointing to the previous discussion(s) so that someone comes to delete these, they can see the established consensus without having to start a bunch of TfDs. Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There's been a spate of TfDs lately about this issue. I'm not sure the best way to establish a clear consensus that in-use RDTs should be kept. There's clearly an implicit consensus, with several thousand RDTs out there, but having something definite to link to would be best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added a note to {{Railway-routemap}}, the standard documentation note used for RDT templates. See {{Yunusobod Line}} for how it looks when it is transcluded. Feel free to tweak my wording, link to a better discussion, revert it, or discuss the text here. I am a busy template editor, a frequent participant at TFD and have worked on many Adjacent stations upgrades, so I am somewhat familiar with the topic areas involved here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)