The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that this is not in the ideal spot right now, but there is no consensus on where to move it. The Help namespace is not for articles such as this, and content-specific information usually doesn't go in Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps a larger conversation is necessary to determine where this belongs. (non-admin closure) Bradv 05:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Railway line legend → Help:Railway line legend – See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Diagram articles. As has been mentioned before this is not really a template, as it only transcluded into a very few user pages, and the main use is the links from many RDTs. Therefore it would make sense to have this in help space rather than user space. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as nom Optimist on the run (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Optimist on the run: Support; maybe add ((Railway track legend)), ((Bus route legend)), ((Waterways legend)), ((Roads legend)) and ((Trails legend)) to the nomination? Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Railway line legend to marry this page with its most related page as a subpage. I oppose the move as proposed since the "Help" namespace is not for pages such as this, but support the creation of Help:Railway line legend as a redirect to wherever this page is moved. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also, I oppose moving the pages referenced above by Jc86035 to their respective "Help:..." titles, but support them becoming subpages of Wikipedia:Route diagram template in the manner as suggested in my previous comment. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Additional comment: For the record, I also weak support no move per Zzyzx11's comment about the Wikipedia: namespace. (I support my option stronger than theirs, but IMO, no move is better than the proposed move.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose moving this page into the Wikipedia project namespace. See my comments above back in 2007 and WP:SELF -- Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website. Since we are linking this legend from various articles in the main namespace, I moved it OUT of the Wikipedia namespace in the first place because those pages do not generally show up in Wikipedia mirrors, or offline references that re-use this material. If you move it back into the Wikipedia namespace, readers who are seeing all these rail diagrams on a mirror website would likely not have access to this legend. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Actually, the optimal solution would be to keep this as a template, and tranclude the collapsible box on all affected articles. With the main use being just a link from articles in the main namespace, it could be argued that it violates WP:CLICKHERE, because it is essentially a "Click here to see the legend"; there is also no direct visibility to the legend when articles are printed out and read offline.[1]. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zzyzx11: There are probably some issues with transcluding this and the other templates everywhere, e.g. the three different formats for RDTs, and that some RDTs already have their own legends in addition to the link. Would it work if the pages were moved to the Help namespace? Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 07:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What sort of issues? I could modify ((BS-map)), for example, change them from "Legend" wikilinks to actual template syntax, then move that entire ((#switch: (({legend|))} statement to the bottom of the table. ((BS-table)) and Module:Routemap could also be modified in a similar way. And the Help namespace is not really optimal. Again, as stated on WP:HELPNS, it is suppose to "contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software", not really for pages such as this. And some Wikipedia mirrors as a general rule may omit the entire Help namespace because almost all of it is relevant for only Wikipedia. The reason I chose to move it to the template namespace back in 2007 was that it was a compromise at the time: these mirrors needed to include templates or most of the articles would not render correctly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zzyzx: It might be a bit confusing to have the entire legend before the actual diagram in printed versions, but I guess that might work. @Useddenim, Sameboat, Redrose64, and Epicgenius: your thoughts? Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 15:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, the legend should be after the actual diagram. This is what I meant when I previously wrote, "move that entire switch statement to the bottom of the table". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zzyzx11: Not possible, for now. ((BS-table)) (several thousand uses) is just table row code, and diagrams using it end with just |} and not an end template so it can't be added easily. If you want to go through all of those and convert them to ((Routemap)) or even ((BS-map)), you'd probably have to review all of them manually because of things like noinclude tags, switch parser functions and ((Infobox RDT)). You could just add the legend, I suppose, but it's probably not worth the effort just to do that, since ((BS-table)) has been deprecated for five years. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 09:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I do not think it is practical to transclude the legend. Printing it also sounds terribly wasteful of papers. I also have issue with catering mirror sites of Wikipedia when most of them are wrapper to earn some ad revenues or attempt to censor its contents, not to mention the sneaky 3rd party privacy mining via Google Analytics or alike. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So you have issues with "catering mirror sites of Wikipedia" and other places that reuses Wikipedia's content? So "it's terribly wasteful of papers" is your answer to every reader out there who might wish to have printed versions offline? Apologies for being blunt and honest, but to me, that sounds like you either disagree with WP:SELF or the mere fact that Wikipedia's content is reused in many places. That is one of the Wikipedia's Five Pillars: "free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute". And this includes the material being printed for offline use, or being posted onto third party sites with ads. That is why we have the WP:SELF guideline in the first place. The idea of having a link to a legend that is hard to access when Wikipedia's content is reused in other places has never been optimal. Not back in 2007, and not now in 2016. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zzyzx11: So what practical solution do you propose? Useddenim (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't think that it's a good idea to transclude this into RDTs, since it includes a large number of symbols (even though it's not an exhaustive list), several of which are not found in the average RDT. Most RDTs have perhaps one or two colours, two or three types of station, and two or three other kinds of principal feature (such as tunnels or viaducts). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I thought about using Lua's string functions to search for icon names, but it doesn't seem worth the effort, and would be quite computationally expensive as well as impossible to implement in ((BS-table)) diagrams. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 10:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I will concede that it may be difficult to tranclude the legend templates directly on all the articles. Therefore, as an interim solution, the legend links will be enclosed in class="selfreference noprint" to disable them on mirror sites and printed versions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.