Wikidata:Property proposal/route diagram
route diagram edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation
| Description | Wikimedia route diagram template |
|---|---|
| Represents | Wikimedia route diagram (Q17146139) |
| Data type | Item |
| Template parameter | "map" in Template:Infobox rail line (Q6289216) (on English Wikipedia) |
| Domain | Wikimedia route diagram templates, which should be templates or list articles using icons from the BSicon (Q21152830) project through Template:Routemap (Q14609945) or Template:BS-map (Q6708710) |
| Allowed values | items with instance of (P31) → Wikimedia template (Q11266439) or Wikimedia list article (Q13406463), as well as instance of (P31) → Wikimedia route diagram (Q17146139) |
| Example | Central line (Q205355) → Template:Central line RDT (Q6048051) |
| See also | route map (P15) |
- Motivation
There is currently no way of linking articles to their respective RDTs through Wikidata. (An inverse property and one for station/track diagrams could also be useful.) As this is my first property proposal, feel free to modify it to make it more suitable/better formatted. —Jc86035 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
- I would disagree with scoping this to items outside the template namespace. If I were to say anything, East Coast Main Line diagram (Q5328127) as a Wikipedia topic does not look notable and should either be moved to template-space or deleted. I guess you'd have an opinion on the preferable option :^). --Izno (talk)
- Otherwise, I think this would be okay in the direction of the template. It feels bad to me to be linking into the template space from an mainspace item, but maybe that's just me. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: (Pinging Mjroots, Useddenim, Redrose64 and Lost on Belmont.) I'm not sure if the diagram should be in the article namespace (it's not really an article; the only category is meant for templates), so perhaps that requirement could be removed.
- My original idea was for linking from the template to the article, although I wasn't sure what that property would be called (perhaps "route diagram or station diagram of"?). I still don't think there's an issue with linking to the Template namespace; we can already link to arbitrary images, for instance.
- I also considered proposing to add this to route map (P15), but then it would have two completely different data types and be a bit confusing. Jc86035 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: Would it be fine to allow the property/its inverse only with/on items with either instance of (P31): Wikimedia template (Q11266439) or instance of (P31): Wikimedia list article (Q13406463), as well as (something like) instance of (P31): Wikipedia:Route diagram template (Q10636725)? (I'd use a different item to the one for the WP: pages, but there isn't one yet AFAIK.) Jc86035 (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Yes, such constraints are possible. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Normal practice is usually just to restrict to e.g. Wikimedia template rather than something more specific, since it's generally the case that subclasses of that class are seen as over-classifying low-priority items. But if you want a subclass of Wikimedia template instead as a constraint, that's completely in the realm of possibility. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: I guess it'd probably suffice to just require WM template/list, because by definition any item having the property (route diagram of) would be a route diagram template anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: That item apparently exists. Jc86035 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: I guess it'd probably suffice to just require WM template/list, because by definition any item having the property (route diagram of) would be a route diagram template anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Normal practice is usually just to restrict to e.g. Wikimedia template rather than something more specific, since it's generally the case that subclasses of that class are seen as over-classifying low-priority items. But if you want a subclass of Wikimedia template instead as a constraint, that's completely in the realm of possibility. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Yes, such constraints are possible. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno: Would it be fine to allow the property/its inverse only with/on items with either instance of (P31): Wikimedia template (Q11266439) or instance of (P31): Wikimedia list article (Q13406463), as well as (something like) instance of (P31): Wikipedia:Route diagram template (Q10636725)? (I'd use a different item to the one for the WP: pages, but there isn't one yet AFAIK.) Jc86035 (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Otherwise, I think this would be okay in the direction of the template. It feels bad to me to be linking into the template space from an mainspace item, but maybe that's just me. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- The East Coast Main Line diagram (Q5328127) clearly states A detailed diagram of the line is housed on this page for technical reasons. This is because it is a detailed diagram showing all stations and junctions, rather than a generic diagram. WPːIAR has been applied re its housing in article space. It cannot be turned into a template without a complete rewrite and change of format to something that is very difficult to understand and edit. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I'm very confused as to why moving the page into the Template namespace would require a rewrite of the diagram. Could you elaborate? Jc86035 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Due to size issues, it would need rewriting from BSMap to Routemap, like the West Coast Main Line diagram. Also, once rewritten, where would it be used? The East Coast Main Line article already has a simplified diagram, and replacing that with the detailed diagram would cause serious issues with the diagram length impacting the article. As I said, this is a clear case of IAR, as I'm sure Redrose64 and others will agree. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Re your first point, it's already a Routemap-based diagram because BS-map wouldn't load. Regarding transclusion of the diagram, we could again IAR and just link to it from the bottom of the simple diagram saying "detailed diagram here", if that's not the case already. I know templates are supposed to be transcluded, but it's obviously not an article or even much of a list. Jc86035 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: I hadn't realised (or had forgot) that you had rewritten the diagram. Your suggestion has some merit, but it is probably better discussed either at WTːUKT or the talk page of the diagram article so that it gets a wider audience. A link to this discussion can be included. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Re your first point, it's already a Routemap-based diagram because BS-map wouldn't load. Regarding transclusion of the diagram, we could again IAR and just link to it from the bottom of the simple diagram saying "detailed diagram here", if that's not the case already. I know templates are supposed to be transcluded, but it's obviously not an article or even much of a list. Jc86035 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Due to size issues, it would need rewriting from BSMap to Routemap, like the West Coast Main Line diagram. Also, once rewritten, where would it be used? The East Coast Main Line article already has a simplified diagram, and replacing that with the detailed diagram would cause serious issues with the diagram length impacting the article. As I said, this is a clear case of IAR, as I'm sure Redrose64 and others will agree. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I'm very confused as to why moving the page into the Template namespace would require a rewrite of the diagram. Could you elaborate? Jc86035 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Kindly can be useful. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)- Support. I don't see how else this can be represented. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- The description currently contains Wikitext that isn't supported. ChristianKl (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: removed the template. Jc86035 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jc86035, Liuxinyu970226, Mjroots, Thryduulf:
Done ChristianKl (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
