Talk:BSicon/Renaming

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

See also: Talk:BSicon/Renaming/SPL,
Talk:BSicon/Renaming/ABZ,
Talk:BSicon/Renaming/k and
Talk:BSicon/Renaming/Canals

Flyovers[edit]

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Vunz, Epicgenius: Since the duplicates in this category have two different and currently valid naming schemas:

Current Proposed
  (vÜWBl) ✓
  (vÜWBr) ✓
  (exvÜWBg+l) exvÜWBr+r
  (exvÜWBg+r) exvÜWBl+l
  (exvÜWBgl) exvÜWBl+r
  (exvÜWBgr) exvÜWBr+l
  (vÜWBg+l)
  (vÜWBor+r)
vÜWBr+r
  (vÜWBg+r)
  (vÜWBol+l)
vÜWBl+l
  (vÜWBgl)
  (vÜWBol+r)
vÜWBl+r
  (vÜWBgr)
  (vÜWBor+l)
vÜWBr+l
  (vÜWBol+lr) vÜWBl+lr
  (vÜWBor+lr) vÜWBr+lr
  (uvÜWBol+lr) uvÜWBl+lr
  (uvÜWBor+lr) uvÜWBr+lr
Crosses over to left
vÜWBl
Crosses over to right
vÜWBr
No lines through   (vÜWBl)   (vÜWBr)
Left line through +l   (vÜWBl+l)   (vÜWBr+l)
Right line through +r   (vÜWBl+r)   (vÜWBr+r)
Both lines through +lr   (vÜWBl+lr)   (vÜWBr+lr)

The icons are still restricted by the naming pattern to down the page/across the page orientations, although I don't think this is too much of an issue right now. Jc86035 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • What’s the problem with across-oriented versions of these?
e.g.:   (vÜWBol+r)  q̿    (vÜWBol+rq)
No problem! -- Tuválkin 00:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I was referring to using 45° and other curves. Jc86035 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Aha, gotcha. We’re cool, then. -- Tuválkin 12:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Jc86035 (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Double-stripe tracks[edit]

@Useddenim: Why rename   (mtSTR+1 red+blue)? Using + instead of ~ causes naming conflicts for stations;   (uemBHF). (A character other than ~ should probably be used due to the {{Routemap}} character restrictions, although I don't know what to replace it with.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I stopped renaming the color~colour icons before I got to   (mtBHF red~blue) &   (mtBHF+1 red~blue), but I couldn't undo the change to   (mtSTR+1 red~blue),   (mtSTR3+1 red~blue) &   (mINT-L green~yellow). On the other hand, using ~ as the connector dovetails perfectly with its use for lower-case suffixes: “half of primary object”. Useddenim (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I've renamed them all back. Jc86035 (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Parallel lines across[edit]

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Epicgenius: Following on from the block of text I posted a while ago, do you have a preference for any of these? It should probably be resolved at some point.

  1. Grave accent; ` (or some other character) goes where v would be in cases where the icon name is ambiguous
    •   (`exSTR+ro-STRr)
    • BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon exDSTq-.svg (`exDSTq-BHFq) 
  2. Creation of ~q suffix; same as q but it can only apply to all of a parallel lines block and not its components, similarly to the other new tilde suffixes
    •   (vSTRl-exSTRro~q)
    • BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon exDSTq-.svg (vBHF-exDST~q) 
  3. Status quo; standard-width icons cannot contain transverse parallel lines with two roots without naming restrictions
    •   (STR+xro-STRr)
    • BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon exDSTq-.svg (exDSTq-+-BHFq) 

I think I prefer the first option, since it doesn't necessitate the rotation of curves. —Jc86035 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest Option 1, but use ^ (the caret symbol, Shift+6 on US keyboards) as the inverse of v. Useddenim (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I think using the caret sounds better (I haven't updated my comment to reflect this). Should the caret always be used, or only be used for ambiguous cases, or somewhere in between? I would probably only choose "always" (i.e. ^-STRq) or "as little as possible". Jc86035 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Apply the KISS principle: therefore, as little as possible/only as necessary. Useddenim (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Option 1 works as well since it's concise. epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
[e] [x] ex
vSTRq        
DSTq-BHFq BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon DSTq-.svg 
DSTq-BHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon ex-BHFq.svgBSicon DSTq-.svg 
DSTq-exBHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon exDSTq-.svg 
^exDSTq-BHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon -BHFq.svgBSicon exDSTq-.svg 
exDSTq-BHFq
t [et] [xt] ext
tvSTRq        
tDSTq-BHFq BSicon .svgBSicon t-BHFq.svgBSicon tDSTq-.svg 
tDSTq-BHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon ext-BHFq.svgBSicon tDSTq-.svg 
tDSTq-exBHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon t-BHFq.svgBSicon extDSTq-.svg 
t^exDSTq-BHFq
BSicon .svgBSicon ext-BHFq.svgBSicon extDSTq-.svg 
extDSTq-BHFq

@Useddenim, Epicgenius: t^exDSTq-BHFq or texDSTq-BHFq? The suffix order makes the latter distinguishable, although it's still somewhat ambiguous. (Obviously this layout would be incorrect in a real table because of e in e.g. evBHF modifying the station rather than one of the tracks, but you get the idea.) Jc86035 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the prefix be ext, rather than tex? In any case, I'd rather go with t^ex to avoid confusion. epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: No, the ex only modifies the DST. Compare   (vexBHF-DST) and   (exvBHF-DST). Jc86035 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I get it now. In your example, it's v (entire icon) plus exBHF (left) plus DST (right) for the first icon; as opposed to exv (entire icon) plus BHF (left) plus DST (right) on the second icon. epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that I've added visual examples to the table, I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly. In fact, using the ^ now reads (to me) as "up, then down"… Useddenim (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) I must be incredibly stupid but I still cannot understand what the problem is. What’s the in the way of naming vFOOq the 90° anticlockwise rotation of vFOO, for any imaginable (square*) FOO? *(I can see the fundamental difference between these two types of icons in that diagrams are contructed with rows, not columns, but that dosn’t invalidate the overall approach.) -- Tuválkin 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Tuvalkin: This is actually quite a good point, because now we have @f and @g and we can use those instead of abusing the horizontal parallel lines syntax. However, eliminating the horizontal "shorthand" style would still be more confusing and I would probably not like it, because   (-STRl+4) would become vSTR+1-q. As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) there was some sort of consensus for doing this, according to Talk:BSicon/Renaming/Archive 5#Parallel lines across, and because we don't have any rotated curves (excluding shifts and the 3-curves which are named as though they are straight tracks) it's probably better to keep the horizontal parallel lines syntax. Jc86035 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Roads[edit]

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Epicgenius: Module:BSicon has informed me, by throwing an error on the 55 files I uploaded with a title containing RR, that I've accidentally created a naming conflict issue by allowing the modifier suffixes to be combined:   (RR) is a valid root, as are   (RG) and   (TRR). Should we do anything about this? There are only about 90 TRR, RG and RR icons combined, so one option would be to rename all of those icons. Jc86035 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The road icons are the ones that should be renamed, in my opinion. -- Tuválkin 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Aside from the fact that this is a case of “You broke it; you fix it”, I’m still trying to figure out what the -~LL and -~RR suffixes are supposed to mean. I think you need to expand the explanatory table to help us all with the compound suffixes that you’re now introducing. But I agree with Tuvalkin that the red and green roads can be renamed; but what would you propose for the Traverser/Transfer table icons? Useddenim (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Out of curiosity, what do these conflict with? epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius, Useddenim:   (hv-STR+1~RR), among others. I did this because the +L/+R suffixes were made redundant by extending the tilde suffixes to ~RR/~LL respectively (same for F/G), and it would be more confusing to have some of the transform suffixes go the wrong way.   (hdSTRr+1-)  (hdSTRr+1-~F)  (hdSTRr+1-~FF). It would already have happened earlier because I renamed the KBF icons to   (uBHF+r@GG) (metro big station on curve from right with station moved back twice) and so on. Jc86035 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I reused the + suffixes for the old-style formations that are perfectly against the icon edge (leer+hl  (lhSTR+L)). Jc86035 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
TRR could become TRV. RG and RR could use some other arbitrary letter, although A, B, D, E, M, P and Y are taken, and we probably shouldn't use something which is already an affix (A, C, D, F, G, K, L, M, R, S, T, W, X). Alternately, we could change all the roads to use three-character roots to avoid syntactical problems which were bound to come up at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion:
Existing   (RD1)   (RP1)   (RP2)   (RP4)
Proposed   (RPH)*
(RA)
  (exRPH)*
(RM)
  (RPB)
(RB)
  (RPR)
(RR)
  (RPG)
(RG)
  (RPWq)
(REq)
  (RPYq)
(RYq)
* H = Highway – Useddenim (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I could go with Useddenim's suggestion, since it still uses the root "RP". epicgenius (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I was actually thinking about renaming RP[1-4] before this, since it's not a logical sequence (RP4 should logically have three dashed lines). [Like this:BSicon .svgBSicon RP4.svgBSicon RP2.svg (RP2RP4) ?Useddenim (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)] Perhaps
  • RD → RPD
  • RP1 → RPS ("unclassified" / "single")
  • RP2 → RPP ("paved" / "painted")
  • RP4 → RPV ("divided")
and then (3), (3,2) could be optionally used for indicating lane numbers for P and V respectively, and (2,1-1,2) could be used to indicate transitions like   (RP2112). (There's a possibility that someone might want more than nine lanes, although if there's no road in the world which is that wide then I'd be fine with not having the punctuation. However, if we don't want to have some other sort of standard delimiter, the brackets might still be useful to avoid the usual naming conflicts.) Jc86035 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I dislike the idea of using parentheses ( ) in icon names because it is two characters whereas all other delimiters are one and also that it’s easy to omit the closing ). Instead, I would suggest a semicolon ;– because we can’t use colons in file names – and commas to separate lane numbers. Then your examples above would become RPP;3, RPV;3,2, etc. Useddenim (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Another delimiter (` in sections above) would be needed to disambiguate all of the curves. Jc86035 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Wouldn't ROOTgeometry;lanes be sufficient? Useddenim (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: I think it would work, although I would want it to be consistent with naming for other icons like   (vÜSTr3+1) and the road crossings where the primary track geometry is indicated at the end of the name. Jc86035 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Worry about that when (if) it happens. Useddenim (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: But it already exists, doesn't it? Just because   (hSKRZ-G13+1) and   (vÜSTr3+1) are conveniently named doesn't mean we shouldn't sort out the rest of it in a logical way. (It's also somewhat likely that if we figure it out and create a massive table full of nonexistent files that someone is eventually going to try and fill all the cells.) Jc86035 (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

ZOLLs and water crossings[edit]

@Newfraferz87: Welcome back. A lot has happened; for example, we now have about ten new suffixes, and the W affix is now supposed to always work like L; i.e.   (WABZgl) and   (hKRZW). This probably makes things more difficult but is more logical. I've renamed e.g.   (hKWZOLLaxe) to TKZOLLWxeo (no conflict with formations a/e because of K prefix).

Thanks :) So the position of the W now follows the orientation of the waterway. However, this implies a conflict with   (hWHSTae),   (hWDSTae) etc., which I named hWZOLLae after (it is now   (TZOLLWo)). Would there be a standardization for the stations as well?   ~ Newfitz Yo! 08:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: Yes, but no one's gotten to them (incidentally, I also wrote BSicon/Guide for doing things to a lot of icons). I believe   (hWHSTae) should be hTHSTWae, but as for the others it's not clear to me whether they're actually elevated. There is also a conflict with   (hKRZWaq), which I accidentally batch-renamed without having removed the q. I'm not sure if that icon should be WKRZhr, but I don't want to use that name because the l and r suffixes themselves cause naming conflicts. Jc86035 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin: Is it correct to omit the h prefix in   (TZOLLWo), like it is for   (mTBHFo)? Should the formations go around the ZOLL? Jc86035 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The   (TBHF) prefix+ROOT combination should imply the existence of the elevated structure (but this example doesn't; perhaps it should be renamed to BHFKRZ, similar to   (BHFABZgl+l) etc.). Useddenim (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: (Sorry, I meant to ask if it was correct to replace the h prefix with the o suffix. Which example are you referring to?) Is BHFKRZ necessary? BHFABZ (station around the junction) exists mainly because ABHF means something else (station at or inside the junction), so if T means the same thing for   (TWZOLLu) as it does for   (mTBHFu), then it shouldn't need to be replaced. Jc86035 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, Newfraferz87: Is it possible to reconcile the suffix naming of   (hKZOLLaxe)? It's not really valid right now because of the limitations of the a/e suffixes so I'd probably rename it to something like KSTRxe+lhZOLLae or KZOLLxeo (like   (RBo)). Do you think there's something better? Jc86035 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you already find a scheme as in   (TKZOLLWxeo)? ;)
Though honestly I didn't find a good alternative when renaming the first icon from xdnGRENZE+BRÜCKE, but KZOLLxeo seems fine (can't think of any potential conflicts at the moment, though there might well be). The trouble comes if it gets combined with complex bridges like BSicon .svgBSicon hSTRa@g.svgBSicon exKSTRa.svgBSicon lGRENZE.svg  then that would probably really require a combination separating line/bridge & feature.   ~ Newfitz Yo! 13:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: If the conflict is resolved, it probably means renaming a few thousand icons, either by replacing the K prefix with some suffix combination, or by replacing a and e with some suffix combinations (probably something like &f/&g/&l/&r). It's doable, and I've renamed a few thousand icons to date, but it would be a bit disruptive and a lot of work just to fix naming conflicts with some icons that don't exist and   (KRZhl). Jc86035 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Quarter transform[edit]

@Useddenim: I have no idea what to do with   (uSTR+r@g), since the icon doesn't have an auxiliary object (unless the curve is now the auxiliary object?), but I suppose it would be appropriate to just let it be, although technically   (uSTR+r~G) implies that the line should be straight after the 90° turn. "uSTR+r~~G" would be forbidden by the Routemap syntax. "u-vvWSLeq" (from   (uvvWSLeq)) is a bit of a stretch, and it's not clear to me if [rotated 90° clockwise] "uvvv-WSLe" or "uv-(vvWSLe)" would make sense. Jc86035 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: If 3STR is a 3-column turn, then this icon could be 2STR, eliminating any conflicts with existing icons. As you noted,   (WSL) wouldn't be an appropriate root. Useddenim (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Maybe it might be better to define a new suffix type for quarter transforms (e.g. "~'[L/R/F/G/M]"), or to redefine one of the existing ones to allow for it? Jc86035 (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
What about something simple, like . as a separator? Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Jc86035 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done a few days ago. Jc86035 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

NUL and lNUL[edit]

Now that there is an expanded set of suffixes to thoroughly describe icon geometry, I think it is finally time to rename the DiagoNULs:

f
  (NULfg)
    →NULf@G
  (dNULfg)
  →dNULf@G
  (NULf-)
    →NULf.g
  (NULf)   (dNULf)   (vNULf)   (vNULf-)   (v-NULf)
  (-NULf)
    →NULf.f
  (dNULf.f)   (vNULf.f)
  (NULff)
    →NULf@F
  (NULga)
  (dNULff)
  →dNULf@F
  (lvNULfa)
    →lvNULf@F
g
  (NULge)
    →NULg@G
  (dNULge)
  →dNULg@G
  (NULg-)
    →NULg.g
  (dNULg-)
    →  (dNULg.g)
  (vNULg.g)
  (NULg)   (dNULg)   (vNULg)   (vNULg-)   (v-NULg)
  (-NULg)
    →NULg.f
  (d-NULg)
  →dNULg.f
  (NULgf)
    →NULg@F
  (NULfa)
  (dNULgf)
  →dNULg@F
fg / gf
  (vNULfg)
  (vNULgf)
fq
  (NULfq)   (dNULfq)   (vNULfq)   (NULfq-)   (-NULfq)
  (dvNULfq)   (dNULfq-)   (d-NULfq)
  (NULfgq)
    →NULf@Gq
  (NULfaq)
    →NULf@Fq
  (lvNULfaq)
    →lvNULf@Fq
gq
  (NULgq)   (dNULgq)   (vNULgq)   (NULgq-)   (-NULgq)
  (dvNULgq)   (dNULgq-)   (d-NULgq)
  (NULgeq)
    →NULg@Gq
  (NULgaq)
    →NULg@Fq
fgq / gfq
  (vNULfgq)   (vNULfgaq)
    →vNULfg@Fq
  (vNULgfq)
1
  (DNULfq)
    →NUL1
  (vDNULfq)
    →vNUL1
  (lvDNULf-q)
    →lvNUL1(L)
  (NULc1)
    →NUL1@1
  (vNULc1)
    →vNUL1@1
  (NUL+c3)
    →NUL1@3
  (vNUL+c3)
    →vNUL1@3
  (vDNULfgq)
    →vNULfg1
  (vNUL+c1-c1)
    →vNULfg1@1
  (vDNULgfq)
    →vNULgf1
  (vNULc1-+c1)
    →vNULgf1@1
2
  (DNULf)
    →NUL2
  (vDNULf)
    →vNUL2
  (lvDNULf-)
    →lvNUL2(L)
  (NULc2)
    →NUL2@2
  (vNULc2)
    →vNUL2@2
  (NUL+c4)
    →NUL2@4
  (vNUL+c4)
    →vNUL2@4
  (vDNULfg)
    →vNULfg2
  (vNUL+c2-c2)
    →vNULfg@2
  (vDNULgf)
    →vNULgf2
  (vNULc2-+c2)
    →vNULgf@2
3
  (DNULgq)
    →NUL3
  (vDNULgq)
    →vNUL3
  (lvDNULg-q)
    →lvNUL3(R)
  (NULc3)
    →NUL3@3
  (vNULc3)
    →vNUL3@3
  (NUL+c1)
    →NUL3@1
  (vNUL+c1)
    →vNUL3@1
vNULfg3
    →vNULfg1
  (vNUL+c3-c3)
    →vNULfg3@3
vNULgf3
    →vNULgf1
  (vNULc3-+c3)
    →vNULgf3@3
4
  (DNULg)
    →NUL4
  (vDNULg)
    →vNUL4
  (NULc4)
    →NUL4@4
  (vNULc4)
    →vNUL4@4
  (NUL+c2)
    →NUL4@2
  (vNUL+c2)
    →vNUL4@2
vNULfg4
    →vNULfg2
  (vNUL+c4-c4)
    →vNULfg4@4
vNULgf4
    →vNULgf2
  (vNULc4-+c4)
    →vNULgf4@4

I think this table shows all of the existing ones. Italicized names would be redirects. The good news is that only about half of the icons would have to be renamed. Useddenim (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Most of this sounds good, although
  • the table is missing some icons, like   (dNULg@F) (and some of them are duplicates) – petscan:6800874 should be comprehensive;
  • "@4" should be "@G" for consistency with e.g.   (tSTR2+4a@g) (I haven't used numbers for any of those suffixes, and using numbers removes the case distinction);
  • lvNUL1(L) should probably be lvNUL1~r (r and not l per   (evCONT1+3)/  (evCONT3+1));
  • ".f" should be ".F" since that's what the renamed files use (unless this one means something different); and
  • it might be preferable to use "ARR" (or "PFL") instead of "NUL".
Jc86035 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear if the arrows are secondary or auxiliary but dNULg@F implies I thought they would be secondary (as with CONT). On the other hand @f might be more appropriate since they can be used on stations. Jc86035 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)