< Talk:BSicon
alt= link=
Archive 1

Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set blue/parallel railwaysEdit

moved from User_talk:Axpde/Archive_3#Category:Icons_for_railway_descriptions.2Fset_blue.2Fparallel_railways

Did you realize that there's already a Category:Icons for railway descriptions/parallel railways/set blue with 322 icons in it? Useddenim (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to move the latter one, it's more logical to first sort by color, next by icon design ... axpdeHello! 16:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Btw. 322 icons is a bit to much, we need some more precise categories ... axpdeHello! 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

BSicon category "water"Edit

moved from User talk:Axpde/Archive 3#BSicon category "water"

So you found funny to distroy my work of adding the category "water" to a number of random BSicons. Was it simpler than actually check what’s in that category, add to its discussion page a simple rule of what should be there and what not, and then post a link to it in my discussion page?

Now, tell me: Why the heck my decision of adding to Category:Icons for railway descriptions/water icons such as   (uexWBRÜCKEr) or   (WBRÜCKEa) is so dumb but it is okay to have there icons such as   (tWGRENZEq) or   (uWVIADUKTr)? Is there a reason at all?

Thanks for any input. Tuvalkin (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a HUGE category tree starting at Category:Icons for railway descriptions, with subcategories for each purpose. So there's no need at all to put a BSicon in different subcategories of the same category tree. If you want to give an overview of what BSicons with a stream of water exist, just create a Gallery, where you can even clearly arrange those BSicons!
The reason why there are still some "overcategorized" BSicons is simple: I don't have the time to check all categories each week :( axpdeHello! 11:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Useddenim

Why would   (num0l) be limited to railway route maps only? And: why should it not be in a BSicon... named category? And: why a category name in singular? Otherwise, maybe helpful reverts. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't. But as it says right at the top of the page, these icons were "primarily created to collaborate with category:Icons for railway descriptions/platform." I don't have a problem if they are cross-listed in another category; but, if you're going to create new categories, make sure that they fit into the existing naming pattern. (The same applies to file names, too.) Useddenim (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
BSicon is an existing name pattern. You suggest I invented that one?
So, you have put them back in this "railway" category section. But hey, your link itself says it is about "railway... /platform". So   (num1a) does not appear anywhere else in your "railway" world? "platform" only? But why then did you not revert to that "/platform" category that you think is so primary?
You have not addressed my other points wrt "BSicon" and "singular category names" I mentioned.
In general, I maintain that your action is not helpful. Also, you introduce (!) an issue with naming patterns (see also below). That is not related, and you can better discuss that elsewhere to be constructive, as you know.

Please revert your reverts. I've spend enough time searching for icons to know what I do. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the names you pick for new icons, I doubt that. Useddenim (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Quite irrelevant, and arrogant. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, this is not how things are done. Want to discuss things, come to the centralized talk pages. -- Tuválkin 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Done this way? Why would a complaint about something else (as Useddenim did) be an argument? Next time the color of my shoes matter? -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what colour your shoes are, or even if you're wearing any. What I do care about is keeping the BSicons from getting too disorganized. If you want to create your own system (such as this or this, then fine, go right ahead – just don't claim that it's part of Category:BSicon. (And it appears you don't have an answer to the points I raised below.) Useddenim (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Expect points below to be answered well eh, below. I maintain my point that you, Useddenim, introduced irrelvant issues (and therefrom personal judgements), above. Once again: If I make a disputable edit elsewhere (or wear wrong shoe color), how can that be an argument in this issue? If my BSicon naming is a thing you want to talk about, that is not a category naming thing. You made it a personal disapprovement. And I note that afterward you, below, try to mix these up (again) to win your point. I repeat: if you have a problem with my naming of new BSicons, you can start a talk elsewhere youknowwhere but not use that as an argument for or against category naming. As for Tuválkin's reply above, see this. T. might have feel caught. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
“T.” doesn’t feel caught, as the reply should make clear. “T.” however feels that dialog with “D.P.” seems to be more stressful than useful and will not engage in further exchanges. -- Tuválkin 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding: I appreciate you argumenting below, I will take a serious reading later on. For the moment, the personal issues I pointed to earlier don't give me an open view yet. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Like. We'll be OK, but could be next year. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


A bit of history (as I understand it – don't necessarily take it as gospel truth): When German wikipedia created the BSicon system for railway route diagrams, all the icons they thought would be needed were put into Category:Icons for railway descriptions/Bilderkatalog‎. As the project expanded and other wikis joined in, more and more icons were created. Eventually specialized subsets developed for canals, trails and highways that only shared a few basic icons with the main BSicon set.

So, the category hierarchy that evolved is fairly straightforward: Category:BSicon is the top-level "umbrella" for icons, Category:BSicon/Templates and Category:BSicon/Documentation. Within icons for … descriptions there exist subcategories where there is either about 100 or more similar icons, or a smaller logically-related independent group. However, (with the exception of two categories that take their name from the icon root), all the categories are not capitalized, and use an adjective for the description name. The only BSicon subcategories that are capitalized are the ones created for special purposes: e.g. Bilderkatalog‎, Documentation‎, Templates, etc.

On to specific answers to your original questions (if I haven't made things clear enough, yet):

  • Why would (num0l) be limited to railway route maps only?
They're not. Simply, "railways" were created first, and are the largest group. (Note that bus lines also use the "railways" icons without any problems, modifications or complaints.)
  • And: why should it not be in a BSicon... named category?
I think I explained that above. Your new categories were on the wrong level, named incorrectly, and unnecessary.
  • And: why a category name in singular?
Adjectives don't take plurals in English. They're just adjectives.
  • So (num1a) does not appear anywhere else in your "railway" world? "platform" only?
I never made such a claim. When Sameboat created them he did so for platform numbering, but that hardly restricts them to that singular use.
  • But why then did you not revert to that "/platform" category that you think is so primary?
Because they are text, and can be used anywhere. The French happen to like using them to identify routes through junctions. Incorrect categorization is incorrect categorization regardless of whether it is too narrow or too broadly overcategorized.

And then there's your new Category:BSicon/New icons‎ which not only breaks all the BSicon category naming rules explained above, but only contains icons that you created. With over 60 existing BSicon categories, you should certainly be able to find an appropriate one (especially since you claim "to know what [you] do".) Failure to do so is what? ignorance? laziness? arrogance? Besides, common sense and proper etiquette dictate that an uploader adds their new icon(s) to the proper page of the Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms.


Moved to Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests#Category:BSicon/New icons‎.

Category:BSicon/New iconsEdit

Also, most of these new icons are not categorized (other than in the aforementioned Category:BSicon/New icons). (Common sense and proper etiquette dictate that an uploader adds their new icon(s) to the proper page of the Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms.) Useddenim (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I, creator of the category [1], wrote: These BSicons are new and might not have been categorised yet. Mostly other editors can make an improvement or an addition, in Category world. Here your wording, U., is problemising; turning a good, rational intention into something "not WP".
The objection these new icons are not categorized by Useddenim is turning theworls upside down. I was explicitly proposing to add the right Category.
Sure, I could be wrong. In naming -- that I would have met you at a talk page. In categorisation -- sure. but hey: I am a serious editor (from the english WP), that can talk. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Green iconsEdit

I noticed many of our green icons had been moved away from Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set green (and its subcats) and kept only at Category:Icons_for_footpath_descriptions. I hope we can all agree that this would be a huge mistake, which I swiftly tried to fix in full.

Let me add that categorization should be independent from filenaming, by the way, and that BSicon fKBHFa.svg can be used for (and should be categorized also as) the terminal station of some Green Line — regardless of wheather its filename is fKBHFa or KBHFa_green.

-- Tuválkin 12:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

YLSS claims this is a good thing because while icon fFOO is in the footpath category, he aptly created a redirect (!!!) named FOO_green which itself is categorized as a rail icon. While there are some weird ideas about categorization floating aroun in BSiconLand, I’m sure that nobody (else) thinks that this kind of duplication of icons is a good idea? -- Tuválkin 13:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This was not my idea. As far as I remember, I first noticed the trend of separate categorization of redirects in some major category of "reds", and since it is also widely used in en:wp, I gladly took it up. The same goes for creating redirects from/to fXXX/XXX_green: the process was already begun. The whole set of greens is quite mixed up due to its being used both for footpaths and for metro/rail lines. Those icons that can only be reasonably used for footpaths are located at "fXXX"; those that are only applicable for rail networks are generally at "XXX green"; and those that can be used for both can presently be found anywhere, with redirects pointing from the paired name. The most flabbergasting case is the following (I even requested moving the last file, but it was reverted):
  (fSTRlf)  (fSTRlg)  (fSTRrg)but   (STRrf green)
From my perspective, it is really inconvenient and puzzling to have both "fXXX" and "XXX green" (and sometimes also "ufXXX" somehow) for the same line within one template. I would wholeheartedly support any initiative to rename the icons to a single pattern, but I would not think of managing that myself. So in the meantime, I could use parallel naming schemes with redirects (isn't it the purpose of redirects, after all?). YLSS (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating an army of redirects in order to categorize them differently than their originals is against the most basic rules of Commons categorizing at large, let alone within BSicons. Doing stuff like this before discussing first is in very bad taste, too. As to the matter at hand, since there is a special preffix "f" for green icons, and since this preffix is not being phased out (which I was not sure about till very recently), then all FOO_green icons should be renamed fFOO. Regardless of their individual use being more likely as footpath or as rail track. -- Tuválkin 14:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Accusing someone of something he didn't do is not very civil, you know. I have checked my contibs and found only a single redirect created by me. About categorization - again, I didn't start it. There were two cats, set green (with subcats) and footpath descriptions; both contained some unique files and both missed some relevant files. Including existing redirects instead of originals was a way to show other users that one doesn't need to constantly switch between "fXXX" and "YYY green" when creating a template, but just stick to a single pattern. In contrast, after your recent edits (adding all FORDs, WBANKs etc. to set green) the two categories are now nearly duplicate. Maybe then it would be easier to delete footpath descriptions and promote set green to the root category, like set blue?
That aside, I support switching to "fXXX" pattern to match "uXXX" - in the end, it is 5 characters shorter :). Ex's should become "uexXXX", right? YLSS (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Footpaths vs. railwaysEdit

Moved from User talk:Tuvalkin.

I hope you do not mind that I've reverted your adding several specifically footpath icons to set green. The roots in question are FORD, JCT, OBJ, WBANK and STRd/u variations. If you insist that they should be present in railways category as well, I guess it would be better to start adding them to some new "set f" category. YLSS (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they should have remained, as railways is the largest, and therefore (by default) the "master" category. (However, maybe the WBANK icons should be redrawn to match WASSER…) Useddenim (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You should consult the developers of various "long-distant walks in the UK" etc. on that. They may practice a different philosophy ;) YLSS (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Which that do you mean? Recategorizing? or redrawing? Useddenim (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Primarily redrawing. YLSS (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that in Commons we should focus on the essence of these images, and not so much on their specific usages. What we have here is a vast family of “icons” (they are not really icons, but no gain in questioning that now) which have one thing in common — their filenames start with "BSicon_" and therefore they are usable with a specific set of templates (which are not developed centrally, but that’s another matter we should address some day). As I see it, our job is to ensure that

  1. Those icons are categorized and otherwise displayed in a way that users can easily pick what they need to build their own diagramas in wikipedia.
  2. There is a set of logical naming conventions so that a casual user can figure out how to name a newly introduced icon, analogous to others already in place.
  3. All icons share certain geometric and topological (and even esthetic) features that allow them to be used together seamlessly.

What we should not care about in Commons is the semantics of that usage. People are using these icons and the templates mostly for railways, yes, but, just like there is the footpaths and the canals, there’s the ancient roman highways in wp:la,, several buslines and road network and, who knows, pipelines or flow charts — and many diagrammatic uses that should be transparent to us.

So, I agree that it should be using things like "set_f" ASAP, centralizing all 008000 green icons, regardless of their intended use — even if we’ll be primarily thinking about rail (note that things like OBJ or WBANK could be used for railways, too, and there is even a suggestion in wp:en that LOCK could be used to identify rack railways in diagrams.) So, yes, I disagree of your reversions.

I hope soon we’ll be able set straight the whole matter of categorization of BSicons — which for now, thanks mostly to the autistic and quirky habits of Axpde, is running afoul of several Common’s categorization guidelines. (I tried to go against that by adding connections to external categories, such as Category:Orange icons in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set orange — we’ll see how long that lasts unchallenged.) The main problem, as was once briefly touched by DePiep (yet another cool customer), is that the trunk of the tree category is Category:Icons for railway descriptions, instead of Category:BSicon. Also there should be multiple concurrent tree category topologies, as is done for any image in commons. Having slashed category names, by the way, is a mixed blessing, and maybe we’d be better off without those.

All this, of course, should discussed centrally. -- Tuválkin 14:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most comprehensively! I can't rival that eloquence;). So your intention is to get rid of Category:Icons for footpath descriptions? If so, I back you. YLSS (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think that Category:Icons for footpath descriptions (and also Category:Icons for railway descriptions) should be what their names imply — and include things like File:Fußweg P7090247.JPG or File:Fareskilt 25.PNG (aptly in neatly named subcategories, of course), for that’s how Commons’ categories usually work. There should be "See also:" links to Category:BSicon, too, at all those generic categories about rout diagrams, mapping signs, etc. But that’s not going to be a swift, simple change. Fornow, I suggest that we keep Category:Icons for railway descriptions “clean”, as a future Category:BSicon, and ignore Category:Icons for footpath descriptions and Category:Icons for canal descriptions (which are currently incomplete mirror repositories for set_f and set_g). (Also: Congratulations for your hard work renaming and fixing the usage of so many icons!) -- Tuválkin 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
{Thanks; I also got sgushenka for that! YLSS (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC))
Vkusniĭ!! -- Tuválkin 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you move the aforementioned icons to "set f", please consider creating some subcat. Having 100+ icons on one page is quite confusing. YLSS (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sure. If anything, I’m usually to blame for the opposite — creating categories with too few items in them (which later fill up, as expected), especially those under Category:Trams in Lisbon. -- Tuválkin 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


(At last) I've copied all files in Category:Icons for footpath descriptions to Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set f or some subcat of the latter. (However, it would be better if someone double-checked me.) So what, are we ready (and willing) to deprecate the separate footpath category? And how? I can think of several options:

  • Completely delete footpath category and direct any links to it towards set f;
  • Make some kind of soft redirect at "...footpath descriptions" to set f;
  • Make set f a subcategory (and only member) of "...footpath descriptions".

Note: "set f" to become "BSicon/set f" or something like that someday. YLSS (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Chose the second option. All links at Commons and those that I found at en.wp were updated to point either to set f or to en:Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/trails. "...footpath descriptions" now shows a soft redirect; probably it should be deleted after some time. YLSS (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Good work! -- Tuválkin 00:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"set blue" and "set green"Edit

Removed from Talk:BSicon

Amongst those megabytes of talks I just found the suggestion to replace

  • set blue by set u
  • set green by set f

AFAIK this is to free those names for "new" blue or green icons. I'm not sure whether it's such a good idea to have another "set blue" aside those standard light rail icons. Same with green, you're just moving "XXX green" to "fXXX", so what green color are you going to add?? a×pdeHello! 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Axpde, why do you even bother to ask? Based on your recent behaviour w.r.t. the ABZg# icons, you just go ahead and do whatever you please with no regard for the consensus, anyways. Useddenim (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I first proposed it under Talk:BSicon/Colors#Blues & Talk:BSicon/Colors#Set B4EEB4, respectively. "Green" could be reserved for current "vert"; and in this case there is not so much to change, so it can be done quite painlessly. Blue/u I do not touch. YLSS (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Eventually "set blue" will be "set u", too. Recategorizing, unlike renaming, hardly affects the projects and can be done with zero disruption.
There’s also a "set red", which nobody confuses for the (dark) red default set.
The advantages of all this should be obvious, and YLSS is on the spot: He has good ideas, discusses with the rest of us, adheres to consensus, and then he works hard at implementing them with minimal damage — an example, really.
(Funny how he sneers at «those megabytes of talks». Yes, we do discuss stuff — shocking, huh? And every six months he comes out of the woodwork and use his admin rights to undo the carefully build up consensus. Hopefully, not for long. Incidentally, there’s no need to create new sections for people who cannot be arsed to read the whole discussion. Lets keep threads intact, please!)
-- Tuválkin 16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
(Only I would like the consensus to be not the two of us, as it often is. Input from others would be most appreciated, even if that would mean a brief glance through these 168 KB. YLSS (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Axpde's single-tree ideaEdit

Axpde wrote this warning as an HTML comment in a BSicon category: «just *one* category!». Didn’t say why — he never does: Just says that there are many BSicons. Well, there are many more photos of trams, e.g. and they seem to fare well with multiple categorization. Indeed the fact that there are many “things” makes it necessary to be able to multi-cluster separately those things along independent sets of related criteria. (E.g. trams by color, size, date, manufactor, system, motive power, etc.) We all know and agree with that basic fact about Commons categorization, except apparently Axpde.

But unlike his naming shanneningans, which has to do more with form than with substance and which piss off other users more through the process (ignoring everybody else and trampling consensus and debate, only explaining his ideas when everybody else is already up in arms) than by result, his categorization shanneningans are simpler to document and they violate a Commons rule simpler to configure than mere politeness and good faith.

He firmly believes that BSicons should be categorized within a single cladogram structure, and he goes on (and had been on for years as most of the above suggests) deleting all instances of cross categorization attempted by other users, both in categories and in individual icons. This renders category galleries useless (we never know if a missing subcat or supercat is indeed non-existent or just forced by him to show up only at a different juncture) and undoes a considerable body of work which would be, anywhere else in Commons, a valuable navigation tool.

Since Axpde is, apparently and finally, in a explanation mood, lets hear here why exactly he thinks that BSicon categorization should follow a different standard than all other medias in Commons. Just for the record. (Please don’t waste time hard deleting this section — there are other admins with the same tool, and others yet with more powerful tools. And they may be even watching here.)

-- Tuválkin 16:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The worst problem with diversification is that noone really knows where to look for something important. Only by chance I found this indictment rather fast. Thanks for not inviting me to this thread, and sorry that you can't claim "he never answered" anymore.
As you may have noticed I also added a "See also" section with the html-comment "add more if you like" but of course you "forgot" to add this here - it doesn't suit your indictment I guess!
The problem with multiple categorisation is that the categorisation tree in Category:Icons for railway descriptions grows to maximal confusion. The same category could show up several times at totally different places, confusing uploaders and those searching for a suitable icon. This confusion result into dozens of badly categorised icons and categories with hundreds of icons noone will have an overview about.
The "See also" section is even superior to the standard categorisation in many aspects:
  1. It's at the very top of the page where you can easily see connected categories at first glance and without scrolling to the bottom of the page.
  2. You can add comments to each listed category as I already did on Category:Icons for railway descriptions/stations and stops (yet without "See also").
  3. You can list subcategories, supercategories and those on the same level.
As I said several times before huge categories with hundreds of icons won't help anyone to find what s/he's looking for. But small categories (<200 icons) with exact explanations and commented links to related categories will help much! a×pdeHello! 00:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, AlgaeGraphix (talk) has been doing an excellent job of monitoring BSicon uploads, and I've been doing my best to keep the Catalogue up-to-date (it only contained six pages when I started), and WP:DE's Bilderkatalog has what? maybe 12? approved icons, so where's the problem? Useddenim (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(with ec) Three points:
  1. AlgaeGraphix started monitoring in fall 2011, I was talking about spring 2007, i.e. four and a half years earlier!
  2. I always changed the catalogues on every project before eliminating the outdated icons.
  3. The German Bilderkatalog is truely the most restrictive catalogue of all projects, but at the same time it's the most consistently named, too! To be honest, in German railroad diagramms we use a lot more icons than those of the official catalogue by now. Just canvassing to admit some more icons ...
I always said I'm ok with most new creations as long as the original project isn't affected, which is conc. "q"-suffix! a×pdeHello! 08:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
(My 2¢.) The categorisation tree does not need to be a tree; it would be far more convenient to have a net (with a selected root and a persistent downward direction). Axpde, why do you write that the same category "show[ing] up several times at totally different places" would confuse anybody? IMHO, if we have several tunnel stations, then they should be contained in a single category with a name that represents it, and this category itself should be included into both in a higher-level stations category, and into a tunnels one. Thus one searching from the top will arrive to the needed file in any way he perceives it; and subcategories are readily listed at the top. Nobody thinks categories with 100+ items are useful, and the neatest way is to break them up into smaller ones with icons sharing the same properties. But it is the intrinsic feature of BSicons that they suit several characteristics at once, so why not to have different paths for these characteristics within our category net? This is the main idea behind MediaWiki categories. YLSS (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You just said "and subcategories are readily listed at the top" - that's right, but supercats are at the very bottom and those on the "same" level won't appear anywhere. That's why the "See also" section at the very top is superior to multiple catgorisation! And as said before, you can even add comments to guide casual visitors through the categorisation tree (btw. ever thought about why it reads "categorisation tree" and not "categorisation net"??) a×pdeHello! 08:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would say it's an anachronism to call them "categorisation trees", since all Wikimedia projects actually employ networks... On the other hand, nothing forbids us to use several navigational mechanisms at the same time, just like navboxes are used concurrently with categories and with some other templates at the top of the page (incl. BStemplates). We can have proper categorisation network + see also + subpages notice at the top. YLSS (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, indeed, the more I think of it... Our current category naming scheme: e.g. "Icons for <...>/set <...>/parallel railways/stations and stops" offers precisely the tree structure Axpde is so fond of, and it is shown as breadcrumbs at the very top of the page. So nothing forbids us to back this up with another navigational strategy, i.e. categories as they are intended to be: representatives of all the properties of a file irrespective of some tentatively introduced order. Axpde, what do you think? YLSS (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have with the single-tree idea is that it can make searching for a given shape more difficult. Let's say I'm drawing a route using Luecke icons, and find most of the ones that I need in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/luecke - but at some point, wanting to show a line ending which is not a station, I find that the desired symbol isn't present. Later, I find that File:BSicon LENDEa.svg is in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/line endings which is fine for line ending - but since it's also a Luecke icon, why can it not also be in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/luecke? Consider the 49 edits that I made on 21 October 2010: in all cases, there was just one category before my edit. In 41 cases, I added a second cat - and in many cases, Axpde then proceeded to remove either my new cat, or the one that had been there previously, sometimes (not always) with the edit summary "one special category is enough". --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Redrose64 is on the spot here… You see, all the above is interesting — see-also sections, concerns about «confusion», the topology of rebranching trees and the notion of a network of concurrent trees, the breadcrumb trail, and all that: However we’re not in 2003 imagining how something like the Wikimedia Commons could be structured in terms of keywords hierarchy for a multipurpose free media repository — we’re 10 years ahead with a solid and established set of procedures, and our pretty icons are no different from litteral millions of other items. So the question is not the details once again Axpde derailed you all into, the question is how the heck it is tolerable that a Wikimedia user, an admin on top of it all, not only proclaims and defends a categorization strategy for BSicons that goes against established practice within Commons at large, but also actively undoes the work of other users and dissuades them from trying again, effectifely stiffling any possibility of having BSicons categorized in the normal way other media are in Commons. That is the problem. -- Tuválkin 19:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that you say you need categories to search a certain icon. That's rubbish! Most categories are far too big to be seriously "searchable", and even worse they are sorted by name and not by icon geometry!
If you really want to help people searching for a certain icon, then you gotto create well sorted galleries! E.g. a gallery for all ...
  • dotted icons
  • tunnel icons
  • elevated icons
  • straight icons
  • curved icons
  • crossings
  • 90° junctions
  • 45° junctions
  • k-type junctions+crossings
  • and so on ...
This way everyone searching a certain icon may find at least one gallery that helps finding the desired icon, mabye more. Then put each on those galleries in every category you find suitable and everyone is happy, especially those who are searching!
Back to the problem with multicategorization. Category:Icons for railway descriptions is the root category for all railway icons and it contains an automatically generated list of subcategories. We already have a lot of subcategories, even more when all those mega cats have been splitted into smaller and more precise cats. The automatically generated tree of subcategories is already very crowded which makes it hard to cycle through it, e.g. when doing maintenance work. Now imagine what'll happen if every subcat will be thrown into every related subcat. Any subcat will appear at least three or more times in this treecrowd which will make this construct nearly unable to maintain!
At the end a word about wikimedia commons categorization: If I take a picture, that shows a person, a car, a house and a tree, it will be naturally categorised into the corresponding categories People, Automobiles, Houses and Trees, maybe ecen more specific as People of Düsseldorf‎, Front views of Volkswagen automobiles‎, Manor houses in Düsseldorf‎ and Trees in Düsseldorf‎, but that's it! Those cats do not overlap and are part of quite different parts of the whole repository. At this point multiple categorisation is needed and makes sense, but not within the very same small part of the repository! a×pdeHello! 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
But you can't force people to use only that single method of searching that you like/endorse! If somebody prefers categories to galleries (there are benefits in both), then we should provide them a suitable means to explore it. As to crowding, I do not think that would be an issue. Subcats need not to be "thrown into every related subcat", only into their parent categories, which yes, can number up to three, I guess: one colour-wise, one or two topology-wise (I think there would be few cases where three would be needed, and possibly that could be simplified). I don't think non-standard colour sets will get so developed to require much breaking-up, so there won't be more than, say, five "colour" subcats anywhere (sorted together at the beginning). As for the topology subcats, there would be far fewer than presently are at Category:Icons for railway descriptions: the mess over there derives precisely from the fact that we use single-tree categorisation. I think we would need only the following first-level subcats:
  1. double width‎
  2. half width‎
  3. quarter width
  4. parallel railways
  5. border
  6. branching
  7. bridge‎
  8. continuation‎
  9. crossing‎
  10. crossing road
  11. dammcut‎
  12. elevated‎
  13. interruption
  14. junction‎
  15. krw‎
  16. line endings
  17. loop‎
  18. platform‎
  19. stations and stops
    • CPICs
    • ACCs
    • INTs etc.
  20. straight
  21. track change‎
  22. tunnel‎
  23. uw
  24. wye‎
Quite a manageable amount, IMO, which could be further simplified if we e.g. group branching, junction, krw, straight, uw & wye into "plain tracks". YLSS (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Mixed setsEdit

Since we now have three (four?) standard colours: <basic>, u, f, (g ?), I suppose the categories for multicoloured icons should be reorganised. For example, like that:

What do you think? Any other proposals for names? YLSS (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree -- Tuválkin 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
As "set u" is larger and much more widely used, shouldn't it take precedence over "set f"; i.e. "set mixed/fu" "set mixed/uf" and as with "set mixed/ug" above? Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably. Or maybe alphabetical? TBH, I do not understand a thing in these prefixes, so just introducing the idea... YLSS (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Subcat namesEdit

Since some major re-categorisation is bulging/under way, I guess it would be appropriate to name newly created categories: 1) "parallel lines" instead of "parallel railways"; and 2) "interruption" instead of "luecke". YLSS (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg AgreeUseddenim (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree -- Tuválkin 14:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  1. Ok, we see parallel lines, but they stand for parallel railways. We don't rename "stations and stops" to "big and small dots" either!
  2. We use "uw" or "krw" to make the corresponding icons easy findable, so why make "luecke" icon hard to find?
  3. There are already enough things to change, we don't need more ... a×pdeHello! 14:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
So do you mean that the Canal people can't use   (uvSTR) for their diagrams? Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course they can use it, same as they use   (uKBHFa) or   (uKHSTa) as "basins"! a×pdeHello! 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point: they are lines—railway, tram, bus, canal, whatever—and there is no need to be so restrictive in their categorization. Hence "parallel lines" instead of "parallel railways", as suggested above by YLSS. Useddenim (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WRTWith Respect To #2, the "ÜW" names are being phased out in favour of more standard ones:   (ÜWo+l)  (STR+1), ÜWABZ~ → ABZ#, etc. Useddenim (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, gotto ask, what do you mean with "WRT #2"?
    Conc. "ÜW" - yes, plain tracks and junctions now use the standard naming scheme enhanced by new directions 1–4, but others like   (ÜWu+l) or   (ÜWt+l) can't be phased out. And maybe you have noticed that I'm just making the megacat "junction" more assessable by creating the new cats "k-junction" and "uw/junction" (not sure at the moment which naming style is better, maybe I'll move the latter one to "uw-junction", opinions?). a×pdeHello! 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about the "e"-suffix, usualy "e" means "track ending" ... as in   (KBHFe) or   (ENDEe) ... a×pdeHello! 18:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  •   (ÜWc1) I guess retains ÜW? WRT "/uw", I would vote for "/uw/junction", if your intention is to have various "STR+1" & "ÜWc1" at "/uw" and various "ABZg+1" at "/uw/junction". YLSS (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yep that's my intention, a small group of subcats (plain tracks, junctions, crossings) instead of just one huge subcat. So if we keep "/uw/junction" instead of "/uw-junction", I think I have to change "/k-junction" to "/k/junction" (and so on) as well ... a×pdeHello! 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Since the new category names are, well, new, why not "45° corner" instead of "üw"? -- Tuválkin 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Why didn't you post this a couple of days ago?.. I have already created Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/uw and its three subcats (plus Axpde one), with some 200 files in them. YLSS (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that there are subcats named "BHF" and "DST" instead of "stations and stops" there is obviously a tendency to name subcats after icon ID instead of icon use, for consistency reasons we have to keep "uw" (icon ID) instead of "45° junction" (icon use). a×pdeHello! 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


BSicon uJUNCa.svg BSicon fTEEa.svg BSicon RP2sRP2.svg BSicon WASSERqd.svg
 ? T-junctions Junction:

Any idea how to name categories for these types of junctions? The first one is labelled "T-junction" at en:Template:Waterways legend, but that name suits the second one better. This is what happens when canals and footpaths are let to develop independently. YLSS (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the Generic roads version. Useddenim (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
And water. Useddenim (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Em... thanks, but any suggestion how to label them? I mean, something like "/krw", "/uw", "/k-junction" etc. I guess "/T-junction" would do? Of course, if nobody plans to introduce JUNC into the "f" set or JCT into the "u" set. YLSS (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Created Category:Icons for railway descriptions/tee and subcats. I was unaware of   (TEEl)'s etc. existence, and it shows a demand for such geometry.   (KRZ) &   (KRX) also suit it. (I guess   (fJCTa) etc. should be renamed to   (fTEEa), right?) This leaves the question of   (uJUNCa). "set u/filled junction" or "set u/junction/filled" ? YLSS (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

UPD:   (fJCTa) ->   (fTEEa) per Talk:BSicon/Renaming#BL. YLSS (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


FYI, I have merged Category:Icons for canal descriptions/non-navigable into Category:Icons for railway descriptions/water, just because I got tired to look up needed icons first in one, and then in the other. I know it was not very prudent of me to do this without prior discussion, but I suppose this was in line with the general trend shown by this page. I.e. ultimately this category should be renamed to e.g. "BSicon/water". YLSS (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fully Symbol keep vote.svg agreed. That’s the way to go, and that’s Commons’ Categorization 101 — should have been done like this since day one, but better late (cp. the above, from 2011) than never. YLSS is to be congratulated. -- Tuválkin 04:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Icons for railway descriptions/krw+uwEdit

This Category:Icons for railway descriptions/krw+uw is wrongly named. Surely "uw" stands for Überwerfungsbauwerken, but when we say and use "uw" in an icon we mean always and only lines meeting an icon corner at 45° not a generic flyover rail viaduct. Categories should serve people who are building diagrams, and when you are browsing them in search of a "uw", you don’t expect to find these icons here above, that is not useful at all. These icons should be integrated in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/krw, because that’s what they are: F.i.,   (KRWgo+l) is just a   (KRWgl+l) with a bridge instead of a flat cross. -- Tuválkin 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I split the KRWs, so these are going to Category:Icons for railway descriptions/krw/flyovers and Category:Icons for railway descriptions/krw+uw can be deleted. -- Tuválkin 16:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  YLSS (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
In the context of these icons,   (vÜWBao+l) should be mentioned; it was similarly miscategorized. -- Tuválkin 15:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done, both issues. YLSS (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

.../parallel railways/uw/doubleEdit

I've created Category:Icons for railway descriptions/parallel railways/uw/double in order to separate "common" ÜWs that just happen to begin/end at entry points for parallel tracks, from double-line 45° curves, mainly because these groups are incompatible between themselves. This was done at the expense of Tuválkin's single line category (I don't mind employing this additional breaking-up criterion, but I don't see any benefit in it either), so possibly another category may be added. YLSS (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, those doubles. I created the "single line" subcats because there were many icons accumulated at generic "parallel" categories and it is simple to diffuse and retrieve them based on whether an icon is like   (vSTR) or like   (vSTR-), or also things like   (vBHF) and   (vBHF-STR) vs.   (vBHF-). -- Tuválkin 12:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"one side", in contrast, is IMO a good idea. YLSS (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
moved related discussion to Talk:BSicon/Renaming/SPL#.../parallel railways/uw/double


Tuválkin, and you kept this top secret! YLSS (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been meaning to initiate that discussion, and this category was made for example. I think that we should:
  • Abbandon the top level Category:Icons for railway descriptions (and kin) and move the whole tree onto under Category:BSicon. For me it is obvious why, but if anyone has doubts, lets discuss it.
  • Keep the current category naming system, with slashes that give a “breadcrumb trail” (and also keeping the recently/finaly adopted multi-tree approach!), but avoid some of the longer names (such as "stations and stops") and replace them with shorter ones. Ditto.
This changeover can be done seamlessly and swiftly with Cat-a-lot and a few volonteers in a couple days; redirects will keep the whole working during the changeover. -- Tuválkin 00:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Q1. "BSicon/road" => "BSicon/water", "BSicon/set u"; but what about present "Icons for railway descriptions"? "BSicon/set bahn", "BSicon/bahn", "BSicon/standard" or something else? YLSS (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between basic set and set u categoriesEdit

I was filling in some gaps in the parallel line tunnel portal icons and I noticed some inconsistencies in the category names between the basic set and set u icons. For example, basic set tunnel portals are in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/parallel railways/tunnel/portal, while for set u the equivalent icons have been in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/parallel lines/tunnel to ground. To me the first style makes more sense (but ideally with 'parallel lines' instead of 'parallel railways').

Old New
Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/parallel lines/tunnel to ground Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/parallel lines/tunnel/portal
Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/parallel lines/tunnel to elevated Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/parallel lines/tunnel/portal/to elevated
Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/tunnel to ground Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/tunnel/portal
Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/tunnel to elevated Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/tunnel/portal/to elevated

Thoughts? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are known discrepancies (I thought there were even more), but I never tried to homogenize them because either version is incorrect — I suspect other people thought the same. The thing is that all of these categories need to be renamed. First of all, we are using Category:Icons for railway descriptions to host exclusively “BS icons” (i.e. diagram elements to be used with a specific set of templates), which should done at the top of Category:BSicon instead (cf. the test name of Category:BSicon/road/tunnel); second, there’s a lot of detail terms which should be discussed: That means a very wide discussion subject, on which little consensus is set — it will be an epic discussion, not unlike what happened with the standartization of colors 2 years ago. (I don’t think there will be epic disagreements, though, just that there’s a lot of ground to cover.) In view of that, the above are minor annoyances which will be dully ironed out once that general cat renaming is done. (That said, there’s no harm in going ahead with the detail renames outlined above, it will only help.) -- Tuválkin 09:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually prefer the "tunnel to x" variants over the "portal" versions, because is is a clear description of what two sets the icons are connecting, namely the "tunnel" set and the elevated, ground (standard), etc. The icons may contain a portal, but that's not the set name and how does one have a line come out of a tunnel without a portal anyway? Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Useddenim (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point about the benefits of "tunnel to x". That format definitely allows for finer-grained categories (such a "cutting to ground" or "embankment to elevated"). -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That is a big project. I think I'm going to start coming up with a proposal for how to clean things up. I'll post it here when I have a good handle on things. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Return to "BSicon/Categorization" page.