Talk:BSicon

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject BSicon (discussions)
Local projects:
Deutsch English Esperanto Español Français
Italiano 日本語 한국어 Nederlands Norsk (bokmål)
Português Russian/Русский Svenska 中文

See here also other discussions about BSicons, or expand:
Main talk:
“Gallery” talk:
Category talk:

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:

Project talk

[edit]

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]

BS-Catalogue buggy?

[edit]

Browsing the image catalogues is no fun at the moment. Until recently, only the icons that actually existed were displayed. Non-existent pictures were hidden. Now something is also displayed where nothing exists, namely the name with a red link. This makes no sense at all, the columns become unnecessarily wide and everything becomes completely confusing. Has there been an edit somewhere that caused this or is it even intentional? Lantus (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was recently reported elsewhere and, appararently, being worked on.
I used to create BSicon catalog tables with the following wiki-code for each icon:
  • [[File:BSicon_(NAME).svg|x20px|×]]
(see example). This displays the icon normally, or, if the file doesn’t exist, it shows a little red "×" — less than 20px wide, so not messing up tables.
This style went out of use because some gadget allows to hide missing file calls, instead of redlinking their names, but that gadget is now broken and only those old style catalogs are usable.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this was not fixed elsehere yet. And when one peeks into {{BSicon catalogue}} it’s just a shell for Module:BSicon catalogue. Which is somehow a good thing because instead of a system in which 100 power users could keep things prodding along by tweaking what’s basicly rich text, now it’s all in the hands of those 10 people who can actually code. @Jc86035: pinging one of them. Help? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.  - oahiyeel talk 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet!, thanks oahiyeel -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split at BSicon/Catalogue/stations

[edit]

The BSicon/Catalogue/stations page has so many templates that it exceeded the template limit, resulting in the footer template not rendering. In addition, the page loads quite slowly for low-end computers. I propose splitting the station page, but I am not sure which section should move to another page. AlphaBeta135talk 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest separate pages for:
Useddenim (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done So I separated the non-passenger station from the main station page. AlphaBeta135talk 21:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New version of BSicon_uhSTRae.svg

[edit]

I need a version of this bridge that obscures whatever is beneath the bridge, so I added a white square below the parapets, but otherwise it appears identical. I cannot upload it, as it says I was not the original author. It suggests giving it a new name. What new name would anyone suggest for an icon that looks identical to an existing one? Bob1960evens (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a temporary solution, I have uploaded it as   (uehSTRae), but it doesn't appear on the table of icons, because the other versions sit on a line labelled BRUCKE. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the   (uhSTRae) icon displays because there is a redirect for uBRUCKE, but cannot find how to create a redirect. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct filename is   (uhMSTRae), M signifying the the icon contains masking – which, by the way, should be #F9F9F9 rather than white. Useddenim (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BSicon/Catalogue: exm group of prefixes

[edit]

I'm reading BSicon/Catalogue (its talk page redirects here), trying to make sense of the fine details on the rules for the various groups of prefixes. I can't help but coming to the conclusion that what is presented as one exm group is really two groups: one group with letters ex, and a second group with letters mfgu. It is in particular confusing that the description in the Naming logic section does not even hint at the fact that f, g, and u are possible letters here! Consider   (uexgKRZo) and   (gexuKRZo).

I'd suggest splitting the exm group, description-wise. Also, in view of ufg being allowed in two different groups: is there ever a case in which two of ufg appear before ex? If not, then the description of the first ufg group could be tightened to have at most one of the prefixes (right now it says ‘zero or more’). 88.129.117.158 13:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice testing for icon existence?

[edit]

I find a frequent headache when coding line diagrams is that icons I'd like to use don't exist. Concrete example: in BSicon/Catalogue/formations#Left & right variants the table lists lMKRZo-L, but when I try to use it in a diagram, I only get those unreadable blue scribbles :-( which apparently signal “file not found”. I suppose one remedy could be to craft the icon in question, but (apart from the fact that not everybody have the SVG skills needed) when I'm in a diagram coding mindset I don't want to constantly switch to an icon designing mindset. Sometimes it makes more sense to change the diagram layout, or perhaps use overlays (although not in the case cited) to construct highly specialised combinations. Moreover, just previewing the diagram one is working on isn't always the best way to spot missing icons; even if the blue scribbles are noticeable, it can be quite difficult to pinpoint which icon is generating the error.

I find that for complex diagrams I prefer to work off-line, in a text editor. In that case, I can moreover use scripting (in the editor) to scan the diagram and alert me of missing icon errors before I copy the code into a browser to have it rendered. But given a purported icon ID, what would be the best way of testing whether that icon exists? One approach seems to be to construct the corresponding URL (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BSicon_lMKRZo-L.svg) and then fetch that—this gives me an OK (200) response if the icon exists and a not-found (404) response if it doesn't. However, those URLs don't refer to the icon graphics as such, but (despite the file extension) to an HTML page with lots of detail information about the file, for example lists of pages on various wikis that make use of this icon—for Commons to compile all that information is definitely overkill for this use-case! (I can reduce network load by switching HTTP method from GET to HEAD, but that still requires the server to say how long the body produced in response to a GET would be, so Commons still have to do all the work of producing the page.)

Is there any alternative? Might Wikidata (a.k.a. the “Structured data” tab) be used instead? 88.129.117.158 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I created   (lMKRZo-L) for you (and also   (lKRZo-L) while I was at it). Useddenim (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, not worth all that much to me at the moment, since my main point about that icon was that merely being listed in the catalogue is no evidence an icon exists. But there is certainly a positive probability someone will find it useful. 88.129.117.158 09:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BSicon&oldid=897371853"