Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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)


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existence of language templates (plus, many of the copies of the English Wikipedia catalogue are currently stagnant, outdated, and/or mostly untranslated).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)

RDT icons: cross-platform interchanges[edit]

I've made a proposal on the Commons BSicon renaming talk page to discontinue the CPIC root by renaming all CPIC icons to become XBHF, XACC and XINT (e.g.   (heCPICr) would become hXBHF-Re). While icons are routinely renamed, this is an unusually wide-ranging change without precedent so it would be nice to have some more feedback there. Jc86035 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello everyone! When bolded text is used, should it only apply to termini or to major stations also? In the template for Amtrak's Acela Express, all the major station are bolded, whereas in the template for the Northeast Regional, only the termini are bolded. Which is better? Please discuss below! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Daybeers: The use of bold text is strongly discouraged for RDTs because it draws emphasis away from the automatic bolding that Wikipedia applies to the self-target when a template is transcluded. The only time I use bold on a diagram is to emphasize smaller text labeling branches on the same diagram. (Note the Catford Loop Line, Dover branch, and Ramsgate branch on the Chatham main line as an example.)
However, there is the special case of New York City Subway line templates, where bold is used to differentiate between local and express stations. Useddenim (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: What automatic bolding are you referring to? –Daybeers (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unimportant railway station
Unimportant railway station
How it appears
on the RDT page
How it appears trans-
cluded onto the page
“Unimportant railway station”
@Daybeers: See the examples to the right. When a page link in a template is transcluded into that page, the wikilink is replaced with bold text. That is why bolding shouldn’t be used in RDTs. Useddenim (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: That's what I thought you referring to, but what about when RDTs are not linked on station pages? I don't know of any Amtrak station where that is done. –Daybeers (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it won't be. I think it's best to be consistent and eschew its use. Useddenim (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And this is a perfect example of why not to use bold type in an RDT. Useddenim (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I'm not really sure how that's an example of why bold type shouldn't be used in an RDT, as the code in that revision specifically bolds each station. I agree that shouldn't be done, but I don't believe that example really explains your reasoning. I personally think bold type can be very useful for showing termini, and at least in the US, I have yet to come across a station article that transcludes an RDT template on it. Why would there be a need for it anyway, since there is the "services" section in the infobox? If a reader wants to know more about the specific line or service, they can click on the link in the services section. Mackensen, Pi.1415926535? –Daybeers (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Daybeers here - bold link text (blue) is visually distinct from bold self-link text (black), and they clearly mean different things. Bolding is useful to distinguish major stations, particularly termini of service patterns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I can see the argument for termini, but for simple routes with only two it's hardly necessary. However, when applied for other reasons, e.g. “major” station, its use then becomes subjective. Useddenim (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for using INT vs BHF[edit]

Hello everyone! I was wondering if there was any consensus for when to use the interchange icon versus the regular station icon on RDTs. I tried searching the archives of this talk page, but couldn't find anything. If a station offers local or intercity bus connections, should it have it? What about if you can get off and wait for a different train route? Or should it only be used for more substantial connections, like a subway, commuter rail, or other rail system? –Daybeers (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Icon Used Example
  (INT) between modes
Airport Station Airport interchange
between different lines on the same system
  (BHF) between branches of the same line
Junction station
between modes where there is a cross-platform interchange
Useddenim (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Thanks for that! What if the RDT is less complicated, like on Template:NHHS? –Daybeers (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)