Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RDT)
Jump to: navigation, search
BSicon CONTg.svg
BSicon KINTACCe.svg
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. BSicon uKBHFa.svg
BSicon uENDEe.svg

RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format[edit]

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.
No consensus to implement. The next step would appear to be further discussion with the volunteers who edit such things (concerning user-friendliness, for example). - jc37 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  1. Tentative support. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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}} }}
    
    became
    {{rws|Cuxton}} ~~ ~~ ! !\\HST\STR\STR\eABZlf\exKBHFr~~{{rws|Strood (1st)}}(Old terminus)
    
    If an RDT is altered to use {{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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support. I find it odd that Redrose64 and Pppery (who doesn't appear to have edited an RDT before this whole debate began) complain about the syntax of {{Routemap}}, when the rules for {{BS-map}} are just as arcane (and possibly less-forgiving, to boot). Admittedly, the documentation for {{Routemap}} leaves something to be desired, but that’s easy to fix. Useddenim (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    {{BS-map}} uses ordinary template syntax. {{routemap}} does not. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support because {{Routemap}} uses fewer templates (1 to be exact) while {{Bs-map}} can run in excess of 100+ templates. So basically, it reduces template load. However, I would STRONGLY suggest that all {{Bs-n}} templates can be kept so, if needed, one can subst the old template syntax into the newer one (thus eliminating all the concerns the opponents bring up). epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: Keeping the old templates but making them subst-only wrappers to the new ones does nothing to address my concern when one is editing existing RDTs. Pppery 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

1B. Oppose[edit]

  1. 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)
    See the comments in the previous RfC by Headbomb and Mackensen. It's not that difficult. If you can write a signature, you can remember how to format the text fields. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    What have signatures got to do with anything? I never sign inside templates or article text. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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}}[edit]

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[edit]

  1. Support, as the creator of the RfC. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per above; we do not retain redundant templates, per standard WP:TFD procedure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per the above. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

2B. Oppose[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Oppose per my oppose of option 1. Pppery (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As per Redrose64. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. 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)

3. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a double-sidebar layout[edit]

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)[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support either A or B. I like A better because it is not only the templates with missing text fields that should be converted; it should be all templates converted to be consistent. But again, see {{BSn-2}} around so it can be substed. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

3B. Support (for double-sided templates which need the missing text fields)[edit]

  1. Support either A or B. See the above. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

3C. Oppose[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. Oppose None of these advantages you are stating for double-sidebars overcome my oppose of option 1, arguing that the routemap syntax is too arcane. Pppery 18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

4. {{BS-map}} diagrams which use a collapsible section[edit]

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[edit]

  1. 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. This removes redundancy and is more convenient than previous BS-map. epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

4B. Oppose[edit]

  1. 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[edit]

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[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Expanded, 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Strongly support this. A clearer documentation about {{routemap}} is needed on WP:RDT, so why not? epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

5B. Oppose[edit]

  1. 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[edit]

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)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diagram articles[edit]

Should diagrams like East Coast Main Line diagram, West Coast Main Line diagram, Great Central Main Line (diagram) and South Eastern Main Line diagram be moved into template space (since they're not really articles)? See d:Wikidata:Property proposal/route diagram. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

But they are not templates, i.e. not designed to be transcluded into another article. -- Dr Greg  talk  11:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dr Greg: We already have Template:Railway line legend, which has just three transclusions, all in userspace, but is linked to from almost every diagram. WP:IAR applies. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
12:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I say keep them in article space. I agree that they're not standard articles, but in effect can be considered equivalent to lists, in that they have a blurb, followed by a table of information, though in this case the information is graphical rather than textual. With regard to Template:Railway line legend, it's been suggested in the past that it be moved to Help:Railway line legend. Maybe it's time to reconsider that idea. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run: Okay then; both considering them lists and moving the legend templates to the Help namespace seem like good ideas to me. I'll ask over on Wikidata if the property could be allowed for lists. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed Template:Railway line legend move to Help:Railway line legend on the talk page. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Station layouts[edit]

(pinging Epicgenius and Useddenim) Should single-use station layouts (such as the one at the top of Kowloon Tong Station) be in the Template namespace, or is it fine for the code to be in the article? (In addition, that diagram is probably in the wrong place in the article. Should it be in the infobox or in § Station layout?) —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At jp:WP (where I've seen these most often), the layouts are hard-coded into the infobox. Useddenim (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel it should be kept in the article. Not only will the other option create templates that are only used in one article, it would also add to the article's template load. It is also unnecessary, as the code in the article works just fine.
It's fine for the track maps to be in the infobox. That's how it was on the zhwiki version. I put them in the station layout section because it was easier. I copied the layout of one of the articles, Central Station (MTR), that had the track map in the "station layout" section. epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I added Central Station's track layout myself three years ago... epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I think for some articles this would make the infobox unnecessarily wide, although not everyone might care about that. Most of the (properly-formatted) ones I've seen on zhwiki have been in the infobox, although the whole wiki's font size is smaller and the station names are much narrower so width isn't as much of a problem. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That's why I put the wider track layouts on the left side of the page, rather than on the right side next to the infobox. For these layouts, it may be better to leave them out of the infobox. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Route diagram location[edit]

It's a good idea to keep a railway's route diagram in a separate page, so it doesn't clutter the textual content of the relevant article. I see some articles follow this idea by putting a route diagram page into the Template namespace.

I'd suggest to make it a slightly different way for 2 reasons: (1) I would rather have something put into the Template namespace that could be re-used in more than one article (hence it is called "Template"), (2) I think it's better to associate a diagram itself with the main article somehow.

A subpage of the main article's page seems for me quite suitable from this purpose. This is what we actually implemented at some other wiki (for example Mediterranean and Mediterranean/imagemap).

I've tried to implement this technique here, but this move seem to meet with opposition: Catania Metro/Routemap was moved back to Template:Catania Metro (and affectively buried among the other templates), while my whole work on Ferrovia Circumetnea/Routemap was simply thrown by someone into a trash dump --Vadp (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't use subpages in main article space: / is used only where it appears in the article name (e.g. AC/DC). Having a route diagram as a separate article can be done, e.g West Coast Main Line diagram, when there is consensus to do so, but it should be an article in its own right. In the case of the West Coast Main Line, there is a simpler diagram in the main article. I do not think there would be any benefit from removing route diagrams from artciles completely. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, for West Coast Main Line you have both West Coast Main Line diagram and Template:West Coast Main Line. What is the point? Wouldn't it be easier to have {{:West Coast Main Line diagram}} at the main article and keep the "Template" namespace a bit more tidy? --Vadp (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vadp: It used to be too big before it was changed to use the {{Routemap}} format, and it's also a little too detailed for most readers who might not need to know about every junction which the line has. I've requested that your diagram be restored in the Template namespace. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Thanks for converting the diagram. Just out of curiosity -- did you use some tool for your magic or rather just some mere regex substitutions? --Vadp (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vadp: See Template:Routemap#Function convertbs. Doesn't work perfectly but it's good enough. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vadp: I just copy the core of the diagram (everything between |map= and the final }}) into a text editor, then change every instance of ¶{{BS to ¶{{subst:BS. Useddenim (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the tips! --Vadp (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:BS-Infobox[edit]

Template:BS-Infobox has been nominated for merging with Template:Routemap-Infobox. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Catalogue[edit]

Are there any issues with the catalogue pages being moved to Commons? As well as facilitating a rearrangement of the pages so they don't take forever to load, this would allow easier internationalization due to the existence of language templates (plus, many of the copies of the English Wikipedia catalogue are currently stagnant, outdated, and/or mostly untranslated). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree . Useddenim (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)