Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 2

message: When i look at Marshlink Line page i can see stations without the  but i can't see thoses with it (XP & IE7, also Firefox 1.5.0.7). Canterberry (XP & Firefox) can see them no problem. Anyone else having issues??? Pickle 01:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the same problem. It's due to a long standing "friendly discussion" about the copyright issues of this image. The latest solution seems to be using a character from a specific font. Unfortunately not everyone has that font installed. I'll revert the  template to something that should work for all users. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. IMHO using an obscure font doesn't help as few people will have it installed. Pickle 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's instructions on how to install the font at Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol. Clicking on ♿ will bring you to that page. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's great for the hardcore nutters (or dedicated folk) like us but its no good for the average browsers of Wikipedia. I'm not having a dig at you but the general stupidity of this situation. Pickle 01:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed Marshlink Line so that even if we were using the standard symbol it wouldn't cause a problem. I agree that it's dumb that we can't just send an image file. Installation of the font will become simpler with the next release of DejaVu on July 1, so we can hold off until then. There's more discussion at Template talk:Access icon. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your help on this Pickle 03:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution of using "3=" (or presumably "4=", "5=" etc for BS2, BS3 etc) is not ideal, especially for users who use the spoorstrip software. However, the  template is still going through a revert war (one user even seems to be warring against himself(!)), though it seems that using the png icon seems to be the consensus, which won't require any fixes to the method of using BS. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the <nowiki>{{access icon}}</nowiki> 

message: There's a discussion of using similar maps for footpaths which may be of interest. Andy Mabbett 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: is the junction at Walpole on Template:MBTA Franklin Line. What's currently on the map is the passenger train paths; the rest is freight-only. --NE2 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to use a newer version of the BSx template, for starters - I'm seeing gaps between icons on consecutive rows, which I think is fixed in current versions of the template. Secondly - the Google map isn't a huge amount of help. Where do freight lines diverge from and cross the other lines, exactly? If I can figure that out, I'll fix it for you as a demonstration. AlexTiefling 09:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this what you're after? – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, but it's a lot bigger than necessary. (Also everything pointing towards the left should be lighter, since the template is for the passenger line.) --NE2 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How would I do this junction? 

message: Does anyone object to me creating a thicker variant for use on lines with local and express tracks? For example, Template:NYCS B'way-7th Av Line would use the thicker line between 96th and Chambers. It should be carefully planned out before creation. --NE2 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thicker variant? 

message: I know that I'd need a new standard for thicker lines. But for normal lines, I made  with , but it doesn't curve properly like . --NE2 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any merit in this or the preceding proposal. The existing diagrams have been used for track sections six lines wide or wider. The standard width of image allows for wide compatibility. I also believe that the examples shown are probably too detailed - there are too many possibly variations. AlexTiefling 11:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "this proposal"? I'm making an image in the standard style, like some existing ones (). As for the thick lines, the issue is with local and express stations. These aren't normally as well-defined on "normal" rail lines, but rapid transit has more frequent service with a small number of patterns. For instance, there's no way to use the standard symbols on User:NE2/BW7 to indicate that not all trains stop at the "small dot" stations between 96th and Chambers, but that they do elsewhere. --NE2 11:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the proposal for thicker lines. It is my understanding that precise representation of stopping patterns is beyond the feasible remit of this project, and would be better treated in the main text of the article. I've never seen your existing example image before. If we were to generate a family of icons on this basis, there would need to be just shy of 3423=648 different ones - three possible configurations for the 'curve' in each of the four corners, two states for the vertical line, two states for the horizontal line, and two states for the bridge in the middle, less the unnecessary cases where both the straight lines are inactive and the curves might be shown as active. AlexTiefling 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I make standardized symbols? 

message: This is less ambitious than the above proposal. By switching: transparent → white, line colour → transparent; colour-neutral icons can be created:
		
Vagary 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour-Neutral Icons