XIV

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.

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: XIV talk:Route diagram template/Archive 8#RFC
• 2016: XIV talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format
• 2019: XIV: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. ※ (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 XIV) 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 XIV over English XIV. XIV 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 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 (XIV: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 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 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 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)※