This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moved from User talk:Useddenim

Cottam & W Burton Power Stations Long link c

When I was reworking {{ Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway Beighton Branch}} ( old version) to Routemap due to template size limit, the BSsplit showing "Cottam & W Burton/Power Stations" got my attention for a design flaw that the effective width of the template itself takes into account of the actual link title no matter how short the piped link appears to be thanks to {{ str len}}. Something has to be done to make it checks for the correct string length. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk · contri.) 02:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still wrestling with the alignment problem. There should be a way to parse wikilink text. (Where is ((U|YLSS}} when we need him?) Useddenim ( talk) 11:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this problem a much smaller one than the one introduced by this latest "fix" (namely, that it makes it impossible to expand the contents of many BS-collapsibles; see for example the current form of {{ Providence/Stoughton Line}})? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{ BSsplit}} never worked inside a collapsible section because Wikitext doesn't support a table nested inside a collapsible table. I though I had created a work-around by using HTML, but that created a different problem. AFAIK, {{ Providence/Stoughton Line}} is the only instance where anyone has used ||BSsplit}} inside a collapsible section, so let's leave it at that (instead of breaking the thousands of transclusions that expect it to work the way it always has) until it's fixed. Useddenim ( talk) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

When coding for a cell, we need to be sure that the {| is at the beginning of the line. Thus, we should have

<includeonly>
{|  etc

instead of

<includeonly>{|  etc

This breaks the simplified version of BSrow, and thus requires the actual ugly form. Pldx1 ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, we need to force the hand of the parser by adding the right incantation. Using a <br> would be too much. It happens that <span></span> makes the job. And thus, we should have:

<includeonly><span></span>
{|  etc

Pldx1 ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, why the sudden need for a change? The template’s been around for 4½ years, and I’ve never noticed a problem…  Useddenim ( talk) 03:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)