Talk:BSicon/Categorization

< Talk:BSicon

.../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

Category:BSicon/road/tunnelEdit

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 volunteers 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)
My stand: having arrived at an impasse, either we move everything under "BSicon", or move everything under "Icons for railway/canal/motorway descriptions". Having a mix of both is incoherent and confuses new icon designers during icon categorisation. Also leaves chances for users to inadvertently create erroneous and duplicative categories under both "BSicon" and "Icons for *** descriptions". NoNews! 06:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Tuválkin to eliminate the top level Category:Icons for railway descriptions. Useddenim (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Great but Category:Icons for railway descriptions should not be deleted, simply left alone to be used for actual icons for/of railway descriptions. BSicons should be categorized under Category:BSicon — this should be a no-brainer, but it is taking years to implement… :-\ -- Tuválkin 00:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Everything under Category:BSicon leaving Category:Icons for railway descriptions for non-BSicons.

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.