Talk:BSicon

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Commons:WikiProject BSicon
Local projects:
Deutsch English Français Nederlands Italiano
Esperanto Español (WP) Español (Ferropedia, extern) Norsk (bokmål) Svenska
Russian/Русский Japanese/日本語 Chinese/中文 Portuguese
alt= link=
Archives
Archive 1

Talk pages[edit]

In an effort to consolidate all of the BSicon discussions, please introduce new topics on one of these pages:

More talks can be found at:

Category talk[edit]

File talk[edit]

There may be more. Some of these may refer to more than a single file, but to the whole set they belong to; those discussions should be moved here.

Wikipedia talk[edit]

Note that these pages should be used for discussions about the Catalog pages, not specific BSicons.

Deletion requests[edit]

Icons details[edit]

removed from User talk:Useddenim
Topics moved to:

New icons[edit]

moved to Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests

New Split level icons[edit]

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

Gallery page[edit]

This desperately needs to be cleaned up and updated. Useddenim (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I cringe every time I see how outdated it become. -- Tuválkin 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Template:BS![edit]

moved to: Talk:BSicon/Templates#Template:BS!

Icons for railway descriptions/set green[edit]

Removed to Talk:BSicon/Categorization.

TUNNELql[edit]

moved from: User talk:Axpde#TUNNELql

Somehow you managed to delete   (TUNNELql) as "unused BSicon, superseded by overlay ability", while it is still used at en:Template:Brussels metro line 1 RDT and en:Template:Brussels metro line 5 RDT. Could you please update those pages with the intended overlay pair? (I can only guess how that icon looked like.) YLSS (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Umf, four more. YLSS (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Do it fast, too. -- Tuválkin 22:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It was a duplicate of   (TUNNELlu), but that's no excuse for not leaving a redirect! Useddenim (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Which should really be called   (TUNNELl) to match   (TUNNELa) &   (TUNNELe)—why the superfluous "u"? 22:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On third thought, rename it to   (tSTRla), as in   (tSTR+4a) et al. Useddenim (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Judging from the usage, it was not a duplicate of   (TUNNELlu), but rather something like BSicon tSTRq.svgBSicon PORTALr.svg (PORTALrtSTRq) . Saying that it can be replaced by overlaying is false, although acceptable at 20 px high. But deleting it without fixing the usage is just typical Axpde. -- Tuválkin 23:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
At the time I deleted those icons "global usage" showed no usage! Your harassment "deleting it without fixing the usage" is definetely wrong! And it's definetely not "vandalized"! Such choice of words is a typical Tuvalkin! a×pdeHello! 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I restored it, as also   (TUNNELqr), which had been similarly vandalized. I also uploaded their vertical equivalents, as   (TUNNELg) and   (TUNNELf). This matter brings up two questions: One of naming, another of semantics.
  • Concerning naming, these four icons present yet again a clear example how bad is having square icons with a previleged sense for vertical lines and none for horizontal lines. Using a trailing "q" as a general 90º rotation switch, as I defend, the horizontal version of these would be named simply as their vertical counterparts with said "q" appended:
  • Concerning semantics,   (TUNNELql) is simply a tunnel portal on a stretch of line, like half a   (TUNNEL1q). It is drawn with room enough to overlay another icon, such as   (RP2) or   (exHST legende). Using this instead   (TUNNELlu) or a sequence of BSicon STRq.svgBSicon PORTALl.svg (PORTALlSTRq)  &   (tSTRq) is semantically irrelevant and matters only whan building a diagram with more or less slack room.
If there’s more to be said about these two questions, lets do it in their own subpages. -- Tuválkin 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The suffix "q" shouldn't be missinterpreted as "we take an icon as seen in direction of travel and rotate it by 90° (counter?) clockwise" because it makes it far to difficult to decide what this should look like! a×pdeHello! 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Are effing serious, guy? This section needs to be put here because you deteled two icons, stating falsely that they were unused (while they were) and that they are replaceable by overlay (which they are not), and you come whining about nomenclature? After what you did not long ago, when you ruined all the “UW” STRs and ABZs? Oh, go sit on a ferry bollard! -- Tuválkin 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop insulting me like a scratched LP! I never deleted any icon where global usage found any page outside user or talk namespace! Furthermore I didn't ruin any "UW" icon. I invented them and I managed to name all ABZ icons consistently!
While you needed one year and help by others to missname and partly replace about three "UW" ABZ icons I only needed one month to consistently rename and fully replace all icons in use plus furthermore create a full set of 48 icons!
You are the one sitting on the ferry bollard, complaining! a×pdeHello! 21:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Both of you: Take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard!
Axpde, you may have "invented" the UW icons, but I believe I read somewhere that that conveys authorship, not ownership. And yes, you did a massive job of renaming a replacing icons, but (IMHO) you did it hastily by skipping User and Talk pages, and you did it without consensus.
Tuválkin, commendable that you proceeded cautiously, but the above exchange does definitely have a personal tone to it.
Anyone else have anything to add? Useddenim (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Other icon sets[edit]

nashtransport.ru[edit]

Plagiarists. [4] [5]. However, in view of this discussion (and its antecedent), we can learn something from them: [6] + [7]. Except for the naming patterns, of course. And #BE2D2C should have been copyrighted. YLSS (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

SMicons[edit]

Concerning these: Category:Icons for subway maps, see this and this (in Russian) and also this. YLSS (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Like you said, reinventing the wheel. (And an awful lot of work when all one needs to do is change 6 characters in an .svg file.23:00, 3 July 2013‎ 98.118.186.28 (talk)‎
There’s nothiong wrong with reinventing the wheel — the result, although garish (what’s with the bold font and the primary colors?!), is interesting, from a diagram-building point of view. Too bad they went for PNG for the icons, not SVG. Maybe we could inegrate these as BSicon masks, redirected to their names? -- Tuválkin 01:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Only if the background colour is changed from pink to #f9f9f9. Useddenim (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks like that Hover and Discover thing someone made. They seem pretty vague and low-quality. I would suggest redrawing them or replacing them as BSicons.Deonyi 08:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

One Two Three more copycats (or great minds think alike)[edit]

Just found these: Category:Icons for SuperVia descriptions. -- Tuválkin 06:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Inkscape... Well, at least not pngs. Well, since it is used in pt.wp, it's up to you to suggest the creators switching to BSicons (if you want). YLSS (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I want. However I don’t have much spare time now, and this needs more than spur-of-the-moment dedication to work. I’ll go around it later next month. -- Tuválkin 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
As long as they don't spam our categories with BSicons ... #shrug# a×pdeHello! 13:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Riverfloating[edit]

Category:Icons for riverfloating. The headnote is quite promising: "This category is in creation phase. Informations will apear here in near future (after uploading and translation)." Apparently without any change since 2007. YLSS (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

PNG bus route icons[edit]

Just found these: Category:Icons for bus line descriptions. Usage in es:Línea_C-3_(Cercanías_Madrid) and ca:TVRCas. Created mostly in 2007, then some added in 2011 and 2013. All these are a good reason for us to move all our stuff to renamed categories named "Category:BSicons/…". -- Tuválkin 09:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pamplona buses: another case[edit]

Here: Category:Icons for bus line descriptions/Pamplona. Apparently made in 2011, not used. Easily replaced with BSicons with minimal changes and then deleted as low quality semantic duplicates, if they were used. I’ll file a DR. -- Tuválkin 09:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Icons for bus line descriptions/Pamplona. All deleted now. -- Tuválkin 14:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Roads[edit]

  1. Category:HWicon – argh, more plagiarism! There's even HWicon WASSER.svg HWicon WASSER.svg... However, the likes of HWicon orJRTor.svg HWicon orJRTor.svg can be renamed and slightly adjusted to become   (nTEEl red).
  2. There's something strange going on with Category:Icons for highway descriptionsBSicons removed. Useddenim (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC) & Category:Icons for road descriptionsBSicons removed. Useddenim (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC). Why there are some BSicons in them? Have you guys just mistyped or was it intentional? Also check their subcategories, they contain quite funny things...

-- YLSS (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Icon attributions[edit]

Is there any standard on how icons should be attributed?   (STR) is in PD, but   (STRq) is in CC-SA, together with like   (tSTR),   (HST),   (DST). Shouldn't these simple shapes be outside inside PD? — Peterwhy 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A while back we sort of decided that they should be all {{PD-shape}}, except for things like  , though there may be a grey area, such as  . Let me try to find that discussion. -- Tuválkin 15:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It is here. -- Tuválkin 15:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking, is it possible to encourage existing icon authors for permission to give up existing CC licenses (or anything more restrictive) to PD, probably except those S-bahn / railway company logos? This follows from a discussion that, since we have been overlaying icons, the image links for some icons are also covered, and this is de facto hiding the link to icon permission page. Also, deciding the composite icon permission (although not a permanent image) may not be trivial if some layers are in CC and some are in PD. Therefore, I would think this BSicon project is not really compatible with {{CC-BY}} and {{CC-SA}}. — Peterwhy 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since most of the icons are so simple, can't they can be arbitrarily changed to {{PD-shape}}? (Or does the licensing also apply to the SVG coding? And in that instance, can code that's computer generated—by Inkscape or Illustrator, as opposed to being manually coded in a text editor—even be licensed?) Useddenim (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I was also under impression that if an image is ineligible for copyrighting, then one can freely change it's license to PD-shape, and I did so occasionally. (No knowledge WRT coding; but if there are any issues, the question of re-uploading icons with clean-coded ones must be considered.) YLSS (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I guess text BSicons should rather be marked with {{PD-text}}, while   (SBHF),   (tC+BHF) &   (SBHF-BKV) could possibly be double-licensed with {{PD-textlogo}}. YLSS (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Then, who is to decide whether an icon is subject to copyright? I think the project needs to massively de-copyright images for the problem stated above, but where is the fine distinction between eligible and ineligible? For example,   (CLRV) {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} is this simple enough to be moved? — Peterwhy 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the SVG files are computer software and need permission from the person who made the SVG files, per w:Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. On the other hand, the PNG files generated by MediaWiki generally appear to be below the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the code still eligible for copyright for simple shapes? And if the visual is not eligible for copyright, can I upload my version of the same icon, with my own code, and move that image to PD? — Peterwhy 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
According to w:Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., USA grants copyright protection to computer software which generates simple shapes. For example, an SVG file is computer software which generates simple shapes. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
My reading of w:Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.#Analysis and holdings is that yes, you could upload your own version, as long as the underlying code is substantially different. (And it would not be difficult to produce code that is “substantially different” to the bloated output of Illustrator and Inkscape.) Useddenim (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There may also be cases where the underlying code is below the threshold of originality for text, but that may be harder to prove. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Alkari has re-tagged a large number of BSicons uploaded by various users with {{PD-shape}}. Can't say that I'm against it, just a little uneasy in view of the above discussion. (But his en masse re-uploading of BSicons with cleaned-up versions is certainly the right thing to do, thanks!) YLSS (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been proceeding on the assumption that most of these icons (consisting of little more than circles, straight lines and 45°/90° curves) fall below the threshold of originality, are therefore in the public domain as {{PD-shape}}, and shouldn't be tagged with licenses which misleadingly suggest otherwise. (Clearly that doesn't apply to things like   (SUBWAY) and   (BAHN), which I suspect are not PD.) I've only just become aware of the discussion here, thanks to YLSS, and hadn't realized this position might be contentious; if it's causing unease, I'll gladly cease re-tagging until some sort of consensus is reached.
However, I'm not sure the Adobe Systems case is particularly relevant here: an SVG file isn't "computer software" at all. The files we're dealing with don't generate simple shapes; they are simple shapes. A program which generates or displays SVGs (e.g. Inkscape, Illustrator, librsvg) is certainly software and is copyrightable per Adobe Systems, but I don't see that this automatically makes the output of such programs copyrightable if below the threshold of originality. Alkari (?), 9 October 2013, 03:03 UTC
There’s nothing contentious about marking as PD-shape icons consisting of little more than circles, straight lines and 45°/90° curves. Everytime I redraw/reupload one of these I change the license. I think we all agree on this one. -- Tuválkin 12:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New template[edit]

{{BSicon-name}} (abbreviated {{bsn}}) to display an icon name in (bold blue code font), without the server overhead required to display a (non-existant) icon. Useddenim (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

At last! Thnx YLSS (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Great thing, but however I must insist that the redirect {{BS-n}} should exist. My preference for this resides in that that most simple, lowercase 2- and 3-letter templates refer to variant language content text to be handled with super-transcluded (“esoteric”) internationalization templates and other mechanisms, based on ISO-639’s Alpha-2 and Alpha-3 code spaces. The fact that Commons (and other projects, too, as these templates are supposed to be portable) have had no need so far to create templates for the languages Bassa (bsq), Buso (bso), or Barasana-Eduria (bsn)[8] should not be reason enough to needlessly create an Y2k bug of our own. -- Tuválkin 04:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Aargh, Tuválkin, you can scare the sh** out of people!!! I find that I just can't type "bsq", "bsn", "bso" now! Created redirects from {{bs-n}} and {{bs-o}}. YLSS (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hehehe!, I know, right? -- Tuválkin 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Foundation's typography refresh[edit]

@Useddenim, YLSS, Tuvalkin, Mattbuck, MUR: As you may have already known our tyrannic Wikimedia Foundation imposed their magnificent typography refresh on all sister projects. The changes involve serif font family for title and section header and slightly larger font size. I have no problem with serif typeface but someone pointed out the compatibility issues with most passive users[9]. The real problem is that by increasing the font size compulsively it means that we need to check and adjust all templates of the RDT project to make sure they don't break in the map. Currently en:template:BSsplit and the like suffer from the change instantly. Maps with collapsible section and defined text width are also highly susceptible. All in all I oppose the typography refresh and has already voiced my opposition in en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#‎Support changing back to original font. German Wikipedia admin also engaged in the revert war with the foundation, meaning this change is quite unwelcome by the community. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprising, sadly. It seems to affect Vector only; I’m good because I never switched from Monobook. -- Tuválkin 10:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It will affect monobook if foundation does not retract it. I mean we will have to modify all RDT templates to make them look acceptable in vector skin which may end up nasty in monobook because vector is the most popular skin and the default skin for anon user. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who's happy with that typography refresh? (Except for Georgia headings, but that's just because I'm unused to them, and I already start realizing their benefits). I am finally able to turn off the 120% zoom and be able too read Wikipedia without problems, even the minuscule second row of BSto!
The overall situation from my point of view is like that: when looking at e.g. en:Template:DLR Route diagram, I see the text pretty much the same as it was before for me with 120% zoom. The icons, on the other hand, have shrunk, and it won't be possible to fit two rows of text (even reduced to 80%) against an icon now. So I propose these solutions:
  • We decrease font size for BS-map, BS-table etc. so that it's like it was before. — I'm against this one, because it would contrast with the rest of the page.
  • We stop using BSsplits and the rest.
  • We increase the value of {{BSpx}} in all projects from current 20px to either 24px or 25px.
  • We start using Routemap more universally (that is, as soon as I swiftly rework some of it aspects). One of its inherent benefits is the possibility to increase the size of icons for the whole template with a single parameter at the top. So, for those RDTs that do not require BSsplitting or something, everything is as it is was before (there is just less space between rows of text, but that's actually better), while for those that would benefit from it, it would be enough to add PX=24 at the start of the (single) template.
So? YLSS (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
May I ask the point of using 24px which looks blurred BSicon STR.svg instead of crisp BSicon STR.svg (25px)? I'm concerned the increased icon size means the overall height of the map will multiply tremendously. I don't quite expect the typography refresh will last long. If it turns out to be an "opt-in" then we don't need to change the current setting at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup, 25px indeed looks better, I didn't think about that. And yes, I do not suggest rushing to change everything straight away, of course we should wait until the things settle. But I expect that refresh to really take ground. After all, they're not without brains, the guys up there... YLSS (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the showcase of BS fractional text template. Notice the result is slightly different in English Wikipedia with more breaks:
text1 text2 text3 text4
BSkm
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSkm
BSkm
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSkm
BSkm
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSkm
BSkm
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSkm
BSkm
BSicon .svg STR
BSto
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSto
BSto
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSto
BSto
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSto
BSto
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSto
BSto
BSicon .svg STR
BSsplit
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSsplit
BSsplit
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSsplit
BSsplit
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSsplit
BSsplit
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg STR
BSicon .svg BHF
BSsplit
BSsplit
BSicon .svg STR

You may simply copy and paste the table codes to other Wikimedia project for testing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@YLSS: I use IE, Firefox and Safari on both Mac and Windows platforms and haven’t found it necessary to resort to zooming to 120%. I don’t mind the change to a serif font for the level 1 and 2 headings, but I don't care for the increased body text size (and has the leading been increased as well?). So I guess you are the only one who's happy with that typography refresh (at least in our little corner of Wikipedia). Useddenim (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess the question is not about browsers or system, but about the proportion of your display and your resolution. My notebook has 17.3", set to 1920×1080. The system zoom for text is 125% (so that I can watch FullHD movies and read some small text at the same time), and IE and Firefox inherit this, but Chrome doesn't. But in any case, this is zoom, which can't be perfect: I always had trouble with 125% zoom because while 20×20px icons resulted in 25×25px icons, 20×10 became 25×13 and 20×5 became 25×7 and all RDTs looked crooked — until I found a way to set zoom in Chrome to 120% (which is a non-trivial task). But this made Tuválkin's 16px RDTs at pt.wp look crooked... So of course it's better to live without zooming (for me). YLSS (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File:BSicon_.svg[edit]

If anyone is wondering why the diagrams at Commons (and some other wikis) are in a total mess right now, see here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:BSicon .svg - urgent!. YLSS (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)