< 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


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)

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin: User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves should help with moving the roughly 900 categories left to Category:BSicon/. I've omitted /straight tracks and /terminus from the category tree, and changed "half width" to "half-width", but otherwise the naming should be largely the same. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you apply for (or make use of) file moving rights. Along with Cat-a-lot, it will make the cat renaming effort much faster and simpler. Concerning the names, I want to insist that this general renaming, long sought and too much delayed as it is, should not be a wasted opportunity for impovements in the naming of each node of the tree: Keeping the quirks of the old cats is not a desirable feature. -- Tuválkin 12:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I have file moving rights, but the limit of 3 per minute causes me to be throttled very often and it takes absolutely ages. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I just moved Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set ruby‎ into Category:BSicon/railway/set ruby in one go, no issues. What are we doing differently? -- Tuválkin 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: It usually happens if I make moves more than once every 20 seconds. Since there are 950 categories to deal with it'd probably be more efficient to just get the bot to do it (and a consensus could be formulated here before sending the move commands all in one go). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Lost on Belmont: Are the /straight and /direction categories necessary? I suspect having /direction would be more useful than /straight, but I'm not entirely sure. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
10:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We can have both. Note that an icon may be straight and have or not a direction mark (arrow), but or also have a direction mark and be not straight. -- Tuválkin 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: The reason /straight might not be necessary is that the station categories seem to assume that default is straight and not /curve. Consistency with those would help with simplifying the tree somewhat as well. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Plain tracksEdit

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin: I'm currently creating a bunch of new categories under BSicon/railway/, since I'm uploading a very large number of icons and don't really fancy making anyone have to recategorize all of them later. Building the category trees, I've noticed that Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set u/plain tracks doesn't really seem to do much. Should it be omitted in the new category trees (i.e. /railway → /railway/k, /railway/uw, railway/straight, etc.)? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
17:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • That cat was created by @YLSS:. I see no reason for that particular branching node in the tree. -- Tuválkin 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to "BSicon/Categorization" page.