The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
These nonstandard templates are only used on eight articles. They can be replaced with the standard and much more popular BSicon templates (see Side platform, which has both a BSicon table, at top right; and an SL table, on the left side of the first section). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to replace all their usage with BSicon? For example, two tables are here. Is it possible to replace both of them? Vcohen (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: I think that one could plausibly be replaced with something similar to {{Central Station (MTR)}} (although (BS SR) and (BS SL) could be overlaid between the platforms of different levels, like with the diagram at zh:油麻地站 in the infobox). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Usually BS-icons have rotated counterparts (for example: (STR), (STRq); (STRf), (STRl)) and they can be systematically created if they don't exist, so I think all you would have to do would be to change the image placement and append q to the filenames. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So, my opinion is: First create replacements for all articles where these templates are used, and only then delete. Vcohen (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is completely ridiculous. Why are you guys putting templates (before the NYCS route bullets) in every NYCS article for? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JoesphBarbaro: If you read the nomination text, these templates, which I assume brought you here, are only used on eight articles (and on only three New York City Subway pages). I'm not sure what you mean by "every NYCS article"; could you please elaborate? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: First off, don't mock me by repeating a quote I said. Secondly, I find your stupid templates to be completely BS. Please don't tell me you're going to do this in every other NYCS article in the future, are you? Why are these so-called templates needed anyway? They're not needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a template world fest. Now answer my question and I hope it's a good answer. If not, I'll delete all of them right on the spot. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JoesphBarbaro: You know, if you're just going to be rude to me when I'm trying to explain things nicely, I may as well not reply to you.
I'm not trying to mock you. I quoted you so you could know what part of your comment I didn't understand.
I honestly don't really know how to reply to you saying "I find your stupid templates to be completely BS", "they're not needed" and "why are these so-called templates needed anyway". For one thing, I certainly didn't create these templates, nor did I put them in the articles. The TfD notice, if you're complaining about it, is generally mandatory for templates which are going to be deleted, as otherwise the editors using those templates will probably be unable to find the discussion.
I would think it unwise for you to delete all the templates, since there is no consensus to just completely remove all the templates from the articles without replacement. Do you mean you want the TfD notice in Template:SL top to be noincluded (removed from transclusions)? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: I just haven't been in a good mood over the internet and outside of the internet due to a ton of personal crisis. But yes, I request for these templates to be deleted permanently at all costs. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a great work. However, I see some issues, and I don't know if all of them are solvable. 1. The SL layouts are equal size squares, the BS layouts are not. You are trying to work it around by converting several layouts into one block, but this force you to rotate them horizontally, while the main direction in the NYC Subway is north-south, and all generic layouts of its stations have to be vertical. The DeKalb Avenue station is oriented north-south too. 2. The SL layouts make difference between types of platforms, such as side, island, or island with one unused side. The BS layouts only support different widths of platforms. 3. The SL layouts make difference between types of tracks, such as in service, usable not in service, or unusable. I am not sure the BS layouts support that. 4. The SL layouts support showing distance between parallel tracks or platforms. Two adjacent tracks look adjacent, and two tracks with an empty trackbed between them look as two tracks with a strip. In the BS layouts the space between the tracks is occupied by arrows showing directions. Vcohen (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“the main direction in the NYC Subway is north-south” — certainly in Manhattan and the Bronx; but in Brooklyn & Queens it’s generally east-west. Useddenim (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even in Brooklyn & Queens the railroad directions are north and south. Therefore I say that generic layouts should be vertical. Layouts of specific stations may be either vertical or horizontal according to their actual orientation. Vcohen (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Railroad directions don't really mean anything to the general public. They look at a map and see “top”, “bottom”, “left”, “right”. (I believe this has been previously discussed, possibly at WT:UKRAIL.) Useddenim (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. I only rotated the layouts horizontally to save (a small amount of) space; they can be either horizontal or vertical. If the diagrams are restored to List of New York City Subway stations, if I have time I will rotate them to their original orientation.
2. and 3. The BSicon set has different icons for open and closed lines ( (uSTR), (uexSTR)) and open and closed platforms ( (STRq+BSa), (eSTRq+BSa), (exSTRq+BSa)). See the first diagram at right.
The issue of unused tracks (3) is closed, thank you. Now, I'd like to see these (see above) layouts, while (1) they are equal size squares, (2) side platforms look different from island platforms, and (4) two adjacent tracks are really adjacent. Vcohen (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: I've addressed some of your issues in the diagrams to the right. However: (1) BSicon maps usually aren't squares (which is a good thing, considering some of them are quite long, and that they usually have text labels only on the right). I guess you could try to make them squares and centre-aligned, but you would have to give {{BS-map}} some small tweaks to make that possible (and it would probably have to be added with consensus from maintainers of WT:RDT and/or commons:Talk:BSicon). I think if you have any further queries about BSicons in general you should probably direct them to commons:Talk:BSicon because I'm not much of an expert on them. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this solve issue 2? (ex platforms are used on the left for clarity; white versions of (BS SL) & (BS SR) would be needed.) Useddenim (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my layouts above. Both represent stations with two tracks between the platforms and without tracks on their other side, but the platforms are of different types. Can you build anything like this? Vcohen (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen, Useddenim, and Epic Genius: I've modified the separators in the diagram to be white (BS SL white). It seems that a better solution (such as making the stripes larger?) may be required, as they aren't particularly distinctive. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My solution is using the SL templates. I created them, I believe they are better than any existing alternative, and I am not interested in deleting them. If somebody thinks different, he should prove his opinion. Vcohen (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: If they were so much better than BSicons, as you claim, they would probably be used on more than three articles. (You also contradict yourself, as you earlier stated that they should be deleted, but only after replacement.) I've started a discussion on commons:Talk:BSicon; it would be great if you could participate and help in it. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I contradict myself, because I gave a chance to my opponents. That does not mean I totally agree with them. And yes, these templates are used in more than 400 articles of the Russian wikipedia, for example see here. Vcohen (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vcohen, who are your opponents? I did not start this discussion to start an argument—when you raised issues, I tried to solve them by showing how BSicons could be used. The templates on the Russian Wikipedia are not the ones nominated for deletion.
How, in your opinion, is the SL series of templates better than other existing alternatives, and why can they not be replaced? The only issue you stated was still a blocking factor was that there was, in your view, no way of showing a side platform next to another track which it doesn't serve, which Useddenim and I have tried to address. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are the same templates on the Russian wikipedia and here. The difference is not the templates themselves, but only the opinions of the participants. So, they are used, and (IMHO) they are visually more suitable for station layouts, but let's ignore that, because my opinion really may be prejudiced. I ask to show me only one thing: that the BS can do the same. If they cannot, there is nothing to talk about. Vcohen (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks usable, IMO; though I prefer Vcohen's version, it isn't used enough, and bs-maps will suffice for most of the examples. However, in the second one, it looks like there's 4 platforms with empty tracks in between the inner platforms and the (nonexistent) outer platforms. @Useddenim: maybe the trackbed can be depicted by a dashed gray line instead of a solid gray line. Epic Genius (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One picture is worth a thousand words. What I am asking for is shown above. Although a thousand words already separate us from my picture, it is still visible. Vcohen (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Could you explain what you want in words (since your picture isn't really clear enough as to what you want and we've already made about four or five diagrams which you claim all don't match the one you want to be replicated)? Is it something to do with the borders? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, borders can help. An island platform has two sides available to trains, a side platform has one. The second side of a side platform is usually a wall or a fence, and that side has no border in my picture. Vcohen (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side platforms no service
The narrower width of, and blank white nothingness adjacent to the side platforms in the BSicon diagrams indicates that — well nothing (relevant, in a railway sense) – is there. I think that Vcohen is simply grasping at straws now to justify continuing to say “No” in a losing argument. Useddenim (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When even the number of tracks is wrong, how can I say that it's correct? Now, regarding the new diagrams: the left one is OK. The right one... why does it have four platforms? Vcohen (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you are trying to say that two tracks or trackbeds shown around the platform are sufficient to understand that it's an island platform. I think our diagram will be much more readable if the platform configuration is shown on the platform itself, by borders or whatever else. Here → is a new example. The left diagram shows two stations. The inner tracks and the platforms' halves adjacent to them are 14th Street (PATH station). The outer tracks and the platforms' halves adjacent to them are 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line). The platforms are divided by walls so that there is no free transfer between the two stations. The right diagram shows the 14th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) station only, emphasizing the fact that one side of the platforms is a wall and not available to trains. Using BSicons, we cannot show that. Vcohen (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line should be longer, as long as the tracks, rather than the platforms. Then it will look like a trackbed, rather than a platform. Vcohen (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. I've added two more examples. To me, the black line implies a division or barrier along the platform (as at 14th Street), whereas the white line suggests physically separate platforms (such as at Highbury & Islington, where the Victoria line and Northern City Line platforms are interlaced). But there's nothing in Vcohen's (left) diagrams to indicate any sort of split, division or separation between the faces of the island platforms. Useddenim (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only goal of my left diagram is to explain (here, in this discussion) the configuration of the two stations. There is no need to show this diagram in articles, as there is no article about two stations together. The diagram I want to see made of BSicons is the right one. Vcohen (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of these diagrams says me that these platforms have walls on one side and are not island platforms? Vcohen (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Is the blank space between the platforms insufficient? If you want you could add (BS SR) (BS SL) between the platforms and tracks to indicate that there is a wall. (This will require something like BS S2 and BS S3 for second-quarter and third-quarter dividing lines, or something similar for platforms in the equivalent positions—which only have first- (BSl) and fourth- (BSr) quarter icons—to improve display.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram updated with (BS S2m) and (BS S3m). If someone thinks they could be renamed to fit better into the naming scheme then by all means do so. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, as far as I see, using BSicons side and island platforms look the same, unlike my SL set. However, BSicons do have means to emphasize both side and island platforms (showing walls and unused tracks/trackbeds respectively) if necessary. Therefore I think my resistance is futile. Thank you. Vcohen (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this the reason so many line templates are getting totally screwed up right now? Because if it is, I'll have to Strongly Oppose the deletion!! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be, since there are only (IIRC) three pages on en:WP that use the {{SL}} templates. Which pages are getting totally screwed up? Useddenim (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
(
(
(
(
(
(
? Vcohen (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
(
(
(
(
(
q.svg){kind=small}
q.svg){kind=small}
q.svg){kind=small}
(
(
(