Commons:Deletion requests/Illogical and implausible BSicons by Cmuelle8

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Illogical and implausible BSicons by Cmuelle8

[edit]
Icons with the water feature mis-aligned:
Icons showing a line in tunnel within an elevated structure:
Icons showing a tunnel line and a surface line in the same spot:

These images were all uploaded by User:Cmuelle8. I believe they should be deleted because although created following BSicon naming rules, all of these icons depict illogical, implausible, or impossible situations, and are therefore useless. --Useddenim (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the contrary. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: If you are expecting me to understand what's going on here sufficiently to be able to present a coherent argument either way you're sorely mistaken. What the heck is a "BSicon", what's it do when it's away from home, and why are these extra icons a problem? Xover (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover: BSicons are the image tiles used to create Route Diagram Templates. Several thousand icons have been created since 2006 when the first ones were introduced. Although the naming syntax is somewhat confusing and convoluted, they do follow a coherent scheme that describes the image/content of each icon. Unfortunately, as with many other broad naming/classification schemes, it's possible to come up with combinations that follow the rules but make no logical sense, such as these ones.
For example,   (hKRZWa@f) purportedly shows a railway track crossing a river without any sort of structure then reaching a bridge abutment;   (thSTRa) shows a track entering a tunnel that is on an elevated viaduct! in   (uthKRZW) a rapid transit line in a tunnel on a viaduct is crossing above a river;   (mABZgt2) has a rapid transit line in tunnel branching off from a rail line on the surface; just to explain a few. The existence of these ridiculous icons is likely not an issue per se, but they could create problems if used in a diagram nonsensically, and may also encourage the creation of even more unusable and problematic ones. (Just because something is possible doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done.)
I'm not really sure how to answer what's it do when it's away from home[?], though. Can you perhaps explain the meaning of your question? Useddenim (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The "away from home" bit was just a flippant way to ask what their function is. Xover (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak delete. I am sympathetic to the nom's reasoning. These icons function within a defined scope where arbitrary and nonsensical variants create confusion. They are essentially "fantasy flags".
    That being said this is so technical an issue that I don't feel entirely comfortable holding any opinion on the details too forcefully. For example, File:BSicon uexthKRZW.svg is INUSE on esWP (on es:Metro de Ankara by way of es:Template:Metro de Ankara) andreplaced with correct icon; Useddenim (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC) File:BSicon uthKRZW.svg is INUSE on deWP (in ). Are these uses evidence that those icons are actually useful, or are they evidence of the problems caused by having nonsensical icons available? These are issues that those involved in the area ought to discuss, not something I, as someone who knows jack-all about it, can contribute sensibly to.[reply]
    So I fall down on a weak delete !vote by viewing the issues as if it were about a template or similar bit of technical plumbing where having random bits of "code" floating around is a problem to be actively handled (by pruning). Very much open to hearing other perspectives on the issue though. --Xover (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep. While these do seem very unlikely, there has been some precedent for elevated tunnels—for example the Hudson Tubes during the construction of the World Trade Center. The last two files seem the likeliest as tunnels and surface lines may sometimes "stack". IronGargoyle (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A good example of why this is an issue that should really be discussed by those with topic-area experience. While I think actually implausible icons should be deleted, those that are merely uncommon I would probably !vote keep for. I just don't have the expertise needed to tell one from the other (I probably wouldn't even get it if you explained it to me on an icon-by-icon basis). Xover (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The files   (thSTRa),   (uthKRZW) and   (mABZgte2) are included in other wikis. That's why we want to keep these files. The other files are not needed by other wikis and can be deleted. -- Plutowiki (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 05:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Illogical_and_implausible_BSicons_by_Cmuelle8&oldid=731626623"