Talk:BSicon/Obsolete and deletions/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category: Icons for railway descriptions/delete candidate

What is your rationale for proposing to delete these 32 new icons? Useddenim (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  (v-STRrq)   (v-STRrf)   (v-STRlq)   (v-STRlg)   (v-STR+lq-)   (v-STR+rq)   (uvSTR+lq-)   (uexvSTR+lq-)   (uexv-STR+rq)   (exvSTRrq-)   (exvSTRrg-)   (exvSTRrf-)   (exvSTRlq-)   (exvSTRlg-)   (exvSTRlf-)   (exvSTR+rq-)   (exvSTR+lq-)   (exv-STRrq)   (exv-STRrg)   (exv-STRrf)   (exv-STRlq)   (exv-STRlg)   (exv-STRlf)   (exv-STR+rq)   (exv-STR+lq-)   (vSTRrq-)   (vSTRrg-)   (vSTRlq-)   (vSTRlg-)   (vSTRlf-)   (vSTR+rq-)   (vSTR+lq-)

There's no need to have horizontally orientated parallel icons, just use two existing ones. It gets way too complicated. Besides that the naming of these icons is inconsistent, there's the extension '+r' and 'lg' who stand for the same shape where the '+r' extension is the correct one. Wiebevl (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Besides that there are 18(!) icons with a suffix 'q', but I can't see any track running across at all! axpdeHello! 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can absolutely guarantee that there will never be a need for these icons, then go right ahead. However, I've used many of the light rail versions in just one track diagram, and I uploaded the heavy rail versions for completeness. Besides, a number of the ÜW combination icons languished in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/experimental for a year or longer before someone found a use for them.
q was used to denote inverse rather than across. Useddenim (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That's not consistent! q should only denote tracks running horizontally and nothing else! axpdeHello! 07:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad icons

moved from en: Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/stations

  • (FLYe)   (fAKRZo2)   (fAKRZu2)
  •   (fOBJrl)   (uLKRZuw) (ueTurmBHFAu)
  •   (uLABZrf2)   (ueLABZlf)   (ueLABZlg)   (ueLABZrf)   (uexLABZlg)   (uexLABZrf)
  •   (uWSPLlrg)   (uexWWP)   (uexWWPLl)   (uexWWPLr)   (uexWWPr)
  •   (uhAKRZoa)   (uhAKRZoe)   (uexhAKRZoe)
  •   (euABZrg)   (uxABZgl+l)   (uxJUNCld-uSTRlf)
hROOTo seems redundant to me…
  •   (uBS2clu-ELEV)   (uBS2cru-ELEV)   (uBS2lf-ELEV)   (uBS2lg-ELEV)   (uBS2rf-ELEV)   (uBS2rg-ELEV)
  •   (uÜWo+l-ELEV)   (uÜWo+r-ELEV)   (uÜWol-ELEV)   (uÜWor-ELEV)   (uÜWu+r-ELEV)   (uÜWul-ELEV)
  •   (uAKRZu-ELEV) (uexHST-ELEVe)
all of these should be hROOT instead of ROOT-ELEV.

Here's the 37 that I found (although the two with the strike-through have been replaced and are tagged for deletion). Useddenim (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Train2104 (talk) found a few more: (ABZvlr)   (FILL) (StationOpen norail)   (exvABZrf) (exvKBFe-BHF) (exvSTRnl)   (ueLock3)   (ueLock5) (ueTurmBHFAu)   (vBHF-KBFa)

  •   (exvABZrf) is a wrong name for   (exvABZgr-STR).
  •   (vBHF-KBFa) is a wrong name for   (vBHF-KBHFa)
  •   (euABZrg) should be uemABZrg.
  •   (fAKRZo2) should be fAKRZ-UKo
  •   (fAKRZu2) should be fAKRZ-UKu
  •   (uWSPLlrg) looks like it should be uexWSLg+lr
  •   (uxJUNCld-uSTRlf) is NOT a rail icon (  (uxABZld) already exists), but a waterway icon that MUST stay filled. Maybe uxJUNC_ld would avoid disturbing the pattern, orwe could transpose the ABZ: uxJUNCgl+xl.
  •   (uexWWPLl)   (uexWWPLr) should be reversed.
  •   (uLKRZuw) seems correctly based on   (uKRZuw) (except for the wrong bridge, maybe it's a waterway/railway icon diff?), and   (uxABZgl+l) is from   (ABZgl+l)->  (xABZgl+l)->  (uxABZgl+l);   (fOBJrl) is a correct footpath icon combining   (fOBJr) and   (fOBJl) (which are, however, seemingly incorrect)
  •   (uhAKRZoa),   (uhAKRZoe),   (uexhAKRZoe),   (ueLock3) and   (ueLock5) all look fine as well and conform to naming conventions AFAICT
    • there may be a need to revisit the use of x/e/ex/ue/ux/uex in road crossings as they are utterly inconsistent with the KRZo/u templates.
  •   (uexWWP)   (uexWWPr) are fine too AFAICT, as are the LABZ series, which I admit looks really odd (and I cannot quite tell how the prefixes interact). I think the issue is due to (a) there being no mixed L- icons and (b) the waterway series uses the circles with a specific meaning that makes mixed icons necessary.
Circéus (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile I marked all these to be moved to Commons, where they can be discussed and renamed. --Tuvalkin (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the point? Shouldn't we move correctly named icons so that other Wikis won't start using them and complicate things when we actually rename them?? Circéus (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought of that, too, but on the other hand
  • other wikis could gain from some of these icons even before correct renaming, and
  • editors in other wikis could give interesting insights about name-correcting options.
--Tuvalkin (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What is there to discuss on commons? Let's break it down:
  • 2 icons are incorrectly named duplicate and will be deleted
  • 3 icons have indisputably correct replacement names
  • 4 icons are indisputably correctly named waterway icons
  • 4 icons are waterway icons with dubious names that are improvable, but en.wp is the sole wiki to use the waterway icons
  • 8 icons are indisputably correctly named rail or footpath icons.
So I repeat, where's the rush? Circéus (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate names

Dunno if you noticed, but when uploading the files back on August 16 for the straight+diagonal crossings, a bunch of duplicates sneaked in:

  •   (ÜWoKRZ) =   (ÜWorl+KRZu) =   (ÜWolr+KRZo)
  •   (ÜWorl+KRZo) =   (ÜWurl+KRZo)

Circeus (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Useddenim (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Near dupes

Speedy deletions of   (uxTUNNELlu) for being a dupe of   (uexTUNNELlu) (incorrectly named at that) and   (5101) for   (KRW_l) were rejected because of minute design differences. I'll nominate them eventually, but right now I'm busy with a big project. Circeus (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Icon speedily deleted and not replaced: uABZa

The icon (uABZa) was speedily deleted, yet was in use on English Wikipedia (see here). As I recall, this icon was essentially the same as   (uSTRq) overlaid on   (uexABZlr), i.e. a blue version of   (eABZq+lr). Which is the new icon name (  (ueABZq+lr) doesn't work), or should I use overlays? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  (uABZq+lr); an' fer cryin' out loud, gimme a chance to take care of all the links! Useddenim (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, should be   (ueABZq+lr). I believe there was a bad double redirect chain that caused the confusion between the u and ue icons.
New icon uploaded. Everything good now? Useddenim (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did have to fix the usage of one which was all dark blue to one with light blue curves; but yes, that's sorted thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Impossible diagonal arrows in halfwide icons

I made these 4 by mistake, and now marked them for deletion:

  •   (dDNULf)
  •   (dDNULfq)
  •   (dlDNULf)
  •   (dlDNULfq)

There’s no productive use for what amounts to be a   (STR3+1) (or   (STR2+4)) recanvased into a halfwide icon, cropped left and right. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Colour set FFF3A9

Moved to Talk:BSicon/Colors#Yellows.

No two meanings on the same icon

Each icon should have only one main meaning, which is refered to in the line text it illustrates (and if we don’t agree on this, lets discuss it at Talk:BSicon/Icon topology and semantics). I therefore created anew (I was surprised these didn’t exist yet) two new icons:

to replace   (vumCONTg), which can now be deleted (it was misnamed, too). Any comments? -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Close colours

Moved to Talk:BSicon/Colors.

uextSTR14lr

moved to Talk:BSicon/Icon geometry and SVG code neatness#uextSTR14lr

KBFar RfD

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSicon KBFar.svg. YLSS (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has stalled. Those who haven't stated their opinions yet, are welcome to do this. YLSS (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

xWASSER

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSicon xWASSER.svg. YLSS (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

BSicon tSBRÜCKE.svg

(about File:BSicon tSBRÜCKE.svg; moved from file talk page)

This seems to be an attempt to illustrate something like  (RP2q※ tSTR) . If so, a non-existent bridge is drawn to avoid depicting a really existing road… -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, this. For whatever reason, despite its illogic, it is approved for the Bilderkatalog. It's only used (outside of listing pages) on one de:User page, so I'd suggest changing it's category to "obsolete" and let it slide into oblivion… Useddenim (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Nope, file is not approved, see de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Bahnstrecke/Bilderkatalog#Kunstbauwerke. Regards a×pdeHello! 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Plus: The route diagram in which this file was used is pure fictional! a×pdeHello! 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What makes a given icon be part of the Bilderkatalog? That it is included in de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Bahnstrecke#Bilderkatalog or that it is categorized in as Category: Icons for railway descriptions/Bilderkatalog‎? Not that I care much for its apparent consistency, but the wording at Template:FVBS Bilderkatalog (that these icons «should not be removed, renamed or altered without prior discussion», presumably in wp:de) is potentially troublesome and ultimately unacceptable for Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ascents

moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Ascents & locks

Zigzag

I guess this one:   (5113) has been superseded by   (ABZ2+4lr)? YLSS (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes,   (5113) isn't as clear. Useddenim (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bunnzeechen Streck um X no lénks

Wow. File:Bunnzeechen Streck um X no lénks.svg. Just wow. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bunnzeechen Streck um X no lénks.svg. I don't even want to replace it with   (exKRZl). YLSS (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was in use at lb:Eisebunnsstreck_Léck-Visé; I replaced it with   (exKRZl). -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a pity to have such a beautiful name go. YLSS (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

kAB

moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#kAB

Category:Icons for motorway descriptions/Testing

  (ROAD) et al.: these icons have almost no usage, and many can be replaced with RP4 icons and overlays. (See User:Circeus/BSicon renaming/Blue#Blue and mixed.) Wholesale deletion, or what? Useddenim (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

YLSS, do I delete them all? Taivo (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I dunno... I have removed from the category those that in my opinion may be useful, so I don't mind if the rest are deleted. Apparently, so does Useddenim. Tuvalkin? Circeus? Anybody else? YLSS (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, there is no reason to keep a whole family of fully unused icons, especially if their design and naming doesnt add anything to our system. On the other hand it doesnt hurt to keep it, but I’m more inclined to favor deletion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted all 48 files and 1 page in the category and the whole category. Taivo (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:BSicon/Redirects

Guys, do we still need this one? It has been gathering dust for several years and now is really out-of-date (and seriously misleading thanks to auto-replaces during file renamings by those users who do not use Special:MovePage for BSicons). Maybe just delete it? YLSS (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it has outlived its usefulness. Maybe it can be archived with some <nowiki> tags excepting the lists from showing up in file-use searches? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
YLSS, do I delete the discussion page? Taivo (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Useddenim? Tuvalkin? Anybody else? I've replaced the images with {{bs-n|ID|link=1}}, so they won't show up in Global Usage (but will in WhatLinksHere). YLSS (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, this was created as a sort of worksheet so that editors could keep track of what needed to be fixed, and progress thereon. (Thanks for the huge contribtution that you’ve made, YLSS.) My suggestion would be to remove all the redirects that have been deleted, and eventually we’ll just have a list the the permanent exceptions. Useddenim (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Useddenim above. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

unconsistently named icons in the list above

moved to Talk:BSicon/Renaming#Mixed junctions

e/xTUNNEL

  •   (xTUNNEL1)
  •   (xTUNNEL2)
  •   (uxTUNNEL1)
  •   (uxTUNNEL2)
  •   (ueTUNNEL1)
  •   (ueTUNNEL2)
  •   (uxTUNNEL1q)
  •   (uxTUNNEL2q)
  •   (ueTUNNEL1q)
  •   (ueTUNNEL2q)
  •   (uxTUNNELa)
  •   (uxTUNNELe)
  •   (utTUNNELa)
  •   (utTUNNELe)
  •   (uxhTUNNELa)
  •   (uxhTUNNELe)
  •   (uehTUNNELa)
  •   (uehTUNNELe)
Now deleted at my request, since there seems to be a consensus below. YLSS (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Good move! -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should finally get rid of these... I recall some comments on their implausibility, but can't find them now. So, my point of view:

  • First of all, there is very little visual difference between   (xTUNNEL1) &   (TUNNEL1), just because a two-stripe tunnel line is paler than a regular line. So in a diagram these icons can only be distinguished as some special ones only if you know what to look for. So pretty everything discussed further on actually fails.
  • If taken "literally", xTUNNEL icons show a track in use with an unused section between tunnel portals. Well, that is bad usage. If a track is unused in tunnel, then it is unused for some time before and after the tunnel as well, so it should be    . Tuválkin's "No two meanings on the same icon" is right on the spot here.
  • If taken metaphorically to mean a former tunnel that is no longer there — i. e. the line passes that spot without any tunnel now — then it's a totally cryptic icon for such a situation, because it does show a tunnel: the formations of the same #80A080 colour as usual overlap the track. See below for suggestions.
  • "eTUNNEL"/"tTUNNEL" versions are totally inexplicable.
  • The presence of these icons in the categories and in the catalogues leads to unintentional usage of them by those users who just spotted a closely-looking icon and failed to pay attention to the "e"/"x" prefix and to the small change in brightness. I have replaced several such instances in different Wikipedias.
  •   (xTUNNEL1) &   (xTUNNEL2) were the only ones to be used with an intention to show a former tunnel, at de.wp and in articles copied from de.wp, namely:

Yes, we do not delete icons because of their inexplicablity, but here it's an inherently misleading design that does not live up to its intended meaning. If anyone has a suggestion for a geometry that would represent some aforementioned situation in a more self-evident way, I think it should be uploaded (if it should be) under a different name, while these should just be deleted. YLSS (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on new geometry split to Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests#exTUNNEL
I agree with the suggestion of getting rid of these icons, and I have a suggestion for former tunnels like those listed above. Just keep the portals there and keep the line solid, by overlapping (rather underlapping) regular icons:  (TUNNEL1※ STR)  — I used this already back in 2011 for the Alcântara II tunnel (transformed in to a cutting-on-a-slope 38°43′9.1884″N 9°10′24.978″W / 38.719219°N 9.173605°W / 38.719219; -9.173605). Actually it is  (TUNNEL1※ CSTR-L※ lDSTR-R) , which adds information about where all that rock and dirt went to. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, why do you still need those portals in this particular case? Cutting + embankment shows pretty much everything, IMHO. YLSS (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I need the portals in that diagram because there is a legend for the former tunnel and therefore it needs to be marked in some way (strangely enough there is more officially available info about the former tunnel Alcântara II than about the much longer, extant tunnel Alcântara I, a few meters to the south…). Meanwhile I corrected the diagram to show  (CSTR-L※ lDSTR-R※ TUNNEL1)  instead, as originally intended and in line with what’s discussed here. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIR I already dropped some comments on their implausibility, because the operability of the track usually don't change at the tunnel portal! Thus the design of   (xTUNNEL1) or   (ueTUNNEL1) is complete nonsense!

The original naming convention says:

  • "x" means (main) track out of use, facility in use.
  • "e" means (main) track in use, facility out of use.

In our case the facility is a tunnel. What does "tunnel in use" or "tunnel out of use" mean? I'd say a "tunnel in use" is a tunnel that's still open, a "tunnel out of use", is a tunnel that's filled with material. Thus I come to the following:

  •   (TUNNEL1) is clear, track and tunnel in use
  •   (eTUNNEL1) shows a surface track in use and a tunnel track out of use -> impossible! (And swapped "x" and "e")
    • We'd rather use  (eTUNNEL1)  or   (CSTRae)!
  •   (uxTUNNEL1) shows a surface track out of use and a tunnel track in use -> impossible! (And swapped "e" and "x", too)
    • Should be   (xTUNNEL1) instead!
  •   (exTUNNEL1) shows a track out of use, but there's still a tunnel visible, so it should be "x" instead of "ex"!
    • We'd rather use  (exTUNNEL1)  or   (exCUTae) if the tunnel has been split open and  (whatever)  when the tunnel is filled again!

What do you think? a×pdeHello! 11:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should rename   (exTUNNEL1), it'll get way too complicated... YLSS (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
That’s a good analysis in many ways [Hooray!: This is the first time in a Very Long Time that I happend to agree with Axpde on something not entirely trivial!] but I’m with YLSS about avoid renamings. We all seem to agree that   (exCUTae) or   (CUTae) are good for a former tunnel that was dug out (although I add the portals under it File:BSicon CUTae.svg (CUTae※ TUNNEL1) , to distinguish from a regular trench cutting that was never a tunnel in the past), and I suggest for filled tunnel this symbol:  (lENDEfg※ lTUNNEL)  — it can be recreated as a separate icon, where overlapping is not possible. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted 9 May 2015

PNG files: deleted 8 February 2016

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BSicon/Obsolete_and_deletions/Archive_1&oldid=708095788"