Talk:BSicon/Colors/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Water colors

By origin, as I understand it, water color is based upon a railtrack crossing:   (WASSER) 00 #007cc3 (light blue), and afterwards we use the "u" (underground) prefix & color to signify navigable water:   (uSTR) 00 #003399 (dark blue). All fine so far (except when one wants to show the New York underground after the Sandy water flow ;-) ). Now there enters a third shade of blue: the disused underground track:   (uexSTR) 00 #6281c0 (another light blue).
My question is: what (lighter blue) color do we use for non-navigable water?

  • 00 #007cc3 (light blue 1)   (WASSER)
  • 00 #6281c0 (light blue 2)   (uexSTR)

-DePiep (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WASSER serves a different purpose than the uexSTR icons as used by canal projects. Obviously we need both available because uexSTR means "former light-rail track" in railway icons, which has nothing to do with water whatsoever. Circeus (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, is what I wrote. Still. uSTR has to do with water (by BSicon usage evolution). If uSTR is used for water, then uexSTR is in it too. Alternative: reproduce all uexXXX and uXXX for water (WASSER and NAVIGATABLEWASSER) in a full separate set. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not,   (WASSER) and   (uexSTR) are used for the same (unused/unnavigable water). What to do? -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing. When they start being actually used in conflicting way (Which I don't see happening any time soon), someone will bother coming up with an actual proposal. And I say that as someone who worked for a couple month on an all-encompassing naming scheme and at no point whatsoever considered that this could possibly be an issue whatsoever. Circeus (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
They are. Seriously, I claim. See my note on the Panama Canal, below. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As I understand,   (WASSER) and   (uexSTR) are not (or should not be) used to represent the same. The wavy icons of the   (WASSER) family stand for “natural” non-navigable streams (or any body of water in most railway diagrams), while the   (uexSTR) family is the disused/planned form of   (uSTR), which stands for navigable water: i.e., canals and river or sea routes and their facilities (including dregways, seamarks, etc.). -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Good description. Problem left is that the shades of blue are too close to call the difference (and associate to a correct legend), while being too apart so that they give a difference (noticable to the eye). IOW: we cannot use them significantly in the same diagram. See also my conclusion below. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Arguably uex icons CAN represent "nonnavigable water" but only because there is navigable or formerly navigable water involved in the diagram. Circeus (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The colors for "non navigable" and "planned" waterways are too close to be used as two legend meanings. For the moment I forget about a difference between "planned navigable" and "planned nonnavigable" waterway ;-). -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
What are you going about with "planned waterways"? Those are represented by L-/LUECKE icons! Circeus (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are they? Maybe in the canals projects, but in railways diagrams LUECKE usually indicates stretches and connections that are not detailed in “this” diagram (and may be so in others). Planned is "ex" in railways diagrams in most Wikipedias. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That would still allow for "planned waterway" needed, so Template:Uexnowiki prefix. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not a theoretical question. It all came together when I described the plumbing of the Panama Canal by BSicon [1]. navigable/nonnavigable, actual/planned. I decided to use green   (ugSTR) for the "planned" part. warning/friendly advise: I prefer the current solution. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware that ug- icons (as far as I understand the Canal project's guidelines) mean not only nonnavigable but unwatered/destroyed sections of a canal? Ultimately, this sort of pointless argumentations can be dealt with easily using the same trick as used here if you REALLY thing the stuff is genuinely confusing. Circeus (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I like the linked trick (add individual legend to the map), which allows for individual color usage. I do not like C. first saying "When they start being actually used in conflicting way", and then when I do provide an existing conflicting usage, changing to "this sort of pointless argumentations". Next argument being problem does not exist because planned waterways do not exist? -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I conclude, that there is no suitable parallel (that can be made) in the scheming & naming between tracks and waterways. Both color and prefix/suffix standards can differ. I'll have to go with that. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the comment:   (WASSER) and   (uexSTR) are not (or should not be) used to represent the same, they clearly are. I dislike the Wasser set, because they make the maps look so amateurish, but on maps like en:Template:Neath and Tennant Canal map, someone has changed most of the original uexSTR icons to xWasser icons, but not all, because there are several where an equivalent xWasser icon does not exist. In my opinion, it makes the map look really messy. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Not really wanting to throw gasoline onto the fire, but what does   (WASSER) signify differently from   (xWASSER)?
P.S. en:Template:Neath and Tennant Canal map Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
IMHO   (WASSER) should only be used for natural watercourses,   (uexSTR) only for unnavigable artificial waterways. This raises the question what   (xWASSER) stands for ...
And yes, some WASSER icons are very poorly drawn, maybe I'll redraw some of them. a×pdeHello! 08:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
WASSER set redrawn and expanded;   (xWASSER) et. al. nominated for deletion. Useddenim (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Proceedings

I created Category:Icons for railway descriptions/obsolete colors for those sets and individual icons whose usage has already been replaced by other sets/icons. At some later point they should be nominated for deletion en masse. YLSS (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don’t agree with that exact procedure (although I agree with the general idea): I think it is better to alter the RGB in the affected files and recategorize them if necessary, and then rename them (which is trivial for unused files). That would leave out needing to be deleted only actual duplicates.
An example:   (HBHF jaune) can be slightly recolored to RGB:FFEB81 and renamed   (exBHFq_yellow), adding to the yellow set an icon it currently lacks; on the other hand, things like   (STR A9A9AA) can be safely deleted (after usage replacement) as its equivalent   (STR grey) already existed. (This goes for almost all of the icons in/under obsolete colors, except for the weird yellow / add red‎ set, which is useless.)
But there’s the need to discuss (or at least document) several special cases. F.i., while Berlin’s U5 and the other #Browns were agreed to be merged and while   (uBHF BlnU5) and   (uKBHFe BlnU5) do have preexisting equivalents in the brown set, there is the question wheather the special Berlin names should be kept as redirects (ditto for Moscow, Kuala Lumpur, and Tokyo). That is a matter that should be addressed, and no Berlin or other such icons should be deleted untill we reach agreement.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I do follow the procedure you describe - cf. Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set grey, - although somewhat retroactively (now that I've got myself filemover rights). On redirects from Tokyo etc. names - I must've misunderstood your proposals earlier. OK, nothing will be deleted. YLSS (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Some colour names

Moscow metro legend

It seems that a new map that is planned to show up in Moscow Metro (but only planned as yet) will have all lines labelled with colour words in both Russian and English, to help visually impaired. (See [2].) So we'll officially have red, green, blue, light blue, (brown), orange, purple, yellow, grey, lime, teal and blue grey lines. What a crazy random happenstance, as one en.wp user used to call himself. YLSS (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


"set blue" and "set green"

Moved to Talk:BSicon/Categorization.

Minimal sets

Set golden was so small it was useless, so I added a few icons to make it minimally functional:

BHF KBHFa KBHFe INT STRq

With these icons, diagrams like this can be easily built, mixing and overlaying with other such sets of different colors and with regular icons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Layer 1: BHF, KBHFa, KBHFe (+ INT if is used customarily) - minimal
Layer 2: exBHF, exKBHFa, exKBHFe, KBHFxa, KBHFxe - to implement planned continuations etc. (plus an additional colour, actually)
Layer 3: STR, STRq, STRlf, STRrf, STRlg, STRrg (x2 for ex) - to implement any ABZs using overlaying
I've made sure these 20 are present in saffron, purple, teal, fuchsia, brown, grey, violet, yellow, lime, azure, cyan, ochre, red & green. YLSS (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

other color sets too thin

I was given the advice there exists other colors such as orange or saffron. Problem is these don't play well with the standard red, when it comes to overlays. Overlays are essential, since these other color sets are woefully incomplete.

But on an overlay, the color (such as saffron) does not completely cover up an underlying piece of standard track, for example. Why was these color tracks made thinner??

Example, 300% zoom from the en:Template:Mobile Grain page.

en:File:Colours BSIcon.png

As you can see, the red bleeds through (just below the blob of Davidson). CapnZapp (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a nasty problem, I encounter it 24/7 (at least in 125%-zoomed Chrome), even in such trivial cases as when   (hABZgl+l) is overlayed with   (ABZgl+xl) and the vertical line thickens noticeably. This isn't an issue with the coding of   (STR saffron) or others, just a browser-end problem. I can only suggest using e.g.   (CONTf saffron) for the background layer, or if needed you can upload   (KSTRe saffron), which should look like this:   (track ending at the center of the icon). It is indeed fortunate that the colour is not messed up as well; when overlaying File:BSicon MWSTR.svg (MWSTR※ STR2) , the red track show up through the yellow middle at the top; and unlike in your case, this doesn't go away if I reset zooming to 100%. YLSS (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Forgotten old set

At Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set 2CA05A there were 15 icons not yet fully recategorized. ✓ All done now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not forget about it! I removed half of items from it a couple of days ago while renaming them, and was planning on recategorising the rest — indeed, you stole from me the pleasure of getting rid of it!! Still, thanks ;) YLSS (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that! Indeed after I did it I thought that this might be the case, but sadly there's no simple way of checking the history of all affluent pages of a given page. Anyway, the merit is yours, of course! -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Set "o": new light green from w:de

previously discussed at Talk:BSicon/Colors#Set_"o"

Template BSo-sol-header existed since december 2010 (used in a few infoboxes, none with a route diagram) but on january 2014 (long after the “other colors” of BSicons were fully discussed and standartized) user MBxd1 (talk · contribs) decided to change its color from      to      and to create a new set o to categorize the newly created light green icons in use in de:Oberleitungsbus Wuhlehirsk.

In view of the (both actual and percieved) role w:de has had in the BSicon project, input is necessary to deal with this situation. I started a discussion at de:Diskussion:Oberleitungsbus Wuhlehirsk#Farben, but what concerns Commons should be discussed here.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't these new icons be in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set 61A375? Useddenim (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, they shouldn't be anywhere... You were too condescending, Tuválkin... YLSS (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The color of template BSo-sol-header was initially not related to colors of railway icons. It was adapted to the color of trolleybus lines in maps. As this is a local template, the change of color cannot be discussed here. It was caused by an adaption to the mainly used color in maps.
The railway icons are not the preferred option for trolleybus lines, but they are used in some cases. de:Oberleitungsbus Wuhlehirsk was one of them, according to practice in German Wikipedia with the blue icons of tramway lines. When this article needed an update in January 2014 (when a new map made the table nearly redundant), I decided to keep it, but to adapt to the color of trolleybus lines in maps. The color of the template was then adapted to that of the icons. A change to other green icons would have been possible, but they were either already used for completely different purposes or too bright. Of course this can be changed again - also for the maps.
Unfortunately there is no real discussion on de:Diskussion:Oberleitungsbus Wuhlehirsk#Farben, but only a table with icons. This does not help anything. --MBxd1 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How about changing the icons to set g? It is already quite extensive. As far as I know, these icons are not used at de.wp at all, but only in en.wp for former (unwatered) canals – so it would be completely OK to re-use them for this purpose. (The colour sets do not need to be assigned strictly to a single purpose: even the "u" set is used both for U-Bahn lines and for canals!) YLSS (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Set g is too bright, it is not well visible in maps. I would prefer set f, but it is already used for cycling routes in de.wp. --MBxd1 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark brown

I was working on a diagram and realized that we don't have a dark brown set. So, I would suggest Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set chocolate with a colour of  4c3300  (which—if my math is correct—is 30% red 20% green). Useddenim (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you really need a dark brown colour, you may want to resurrect set 71592E and darken it a bit...
But possibly maroon would be a better idea. Do I understand right that it was you who chose #881210 for {{KLRT color|4}}? If that wasn't a random thought, I suggest that you proceed with it, or with #800000. Maroon is a substantially different hue from both brown and bahn, and I once wanted to introduce it myself (although now I can't recall what for...). YLSS (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Useddenim: : please check the ex-values, they seem to be too bright... Cf. violet → ex_violet. YLSS (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@YLSS: : That's what the color picker tool came up with using 50% opacity over #f9f9f9 background. No icons have been uploaded yet, so the values can be changed. Useddenim (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it should be 60%, remember?.. Using a calculator, I get  928364  &  B16464 . YLSS (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Pink

I'm looking to create a pink set as the ruby and fuchsia sets don't quite match what I want.

I got  E87EA6  and  EFAFC7  for the ex variant using the above method. Just wanted to get Some feedback/comments/concerns before proceeding. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that we need something lighter than fuchsia. (Tuválkin, sorry, your redirects will have to go!) But probably it would be better to choose some other shade, further away from magenta, and possibly a bit darker (to enhance contrast with ex). Something towards en:Brink pink  FB607F . How about  F0668D , ex =  F4A1B8 ? YLSS (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit, I stole E87EA6, straight from the Chicago Transit Authority's Pink Line webpage, but I think  F0668D  and  F4A1B8  will work fine. I'll get started. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, here’s some numbers: The same assessment we did 2 yrs ago for the big color clean-up: Vectorial RGB distance to nearest neighbour in the w:en color list and in our own palette; correlates to how different (or not) it is from all other colors:
color RGB dist. to… (in w:en) RGB dist. to… (among BSicons) Remarks
E87EA6 18.708% Thulian pink 28,302% BSicon ex-ruby CTA pink
EFAFC7 16,310% Lavender pink 50,468% BSicon ex-grey ex-CTA pink
FB607F 00,000% Brink pink 20,833% BSicon ex-red YLSS’ suggestion #1
F0668D 18,788% Brink pink 25,671% BSicon ex-red YLSS’ suggestion #2
F4A1B8 06,557% Amaranth pink 57,801% BSicon ex-fuchsia ex-YLSS’ suggestion #2
Looks like all proposals are significatively different from anything we have, especially the "ex" versions. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think adding pink is a good idea. No problem with the redirects I made a while ago for {{TramColors}} from "pink" (unexistent, then) to "ex ruby":
  •   (STRq_pink)
  •   (INTq_pink)
  •   (eINTq_pink)
The new shade looks better and will fit seamless in Category:Black_and_pink_trams and other such pages. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I had forgot about   (vSTR_pink) and the unused   (INT_pink). See also Category:Icons for railway descriptions/redirect/aliased colours, now only harbouring “silver”, as pink attained realhood. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What can I say guys... Congrats to ourselves! I think that was the swiftest inception of a set: 8 hours after the first thoughts were posted, we have a fully functional set, uploaded by three users! YLSS (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

New colour? (#0000ff)

There seem to be a number of Chinese metro lines (e.g. Tianjin Metro line 9 (diagram)) that use just flat RGB colours as their line colour. Since there isn't currently any bright blue (#0000ff) could we add this as "ultramarine" (or similar)? (Pinging Tuválkin, Lost on Belmont, YLSS, Useddenim.) Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 10:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think not:
  •  0000FF  is one of those lazy colors people pick from a simple-minded palette and don’t even think about it. It’s sad that “post-geek” computing apparently means to dismiss things like knowledge of HTML (or even wiki code!) but these nasty remains ot times long by gone (256-color screens, anyone?) are still around.
  • This color shade      is too “bright” (not pastel) to be adequate for a wikipedia page — I’m surprised this is in use in en:wp (where people are particularly fussy about this, and rightly so) and it wont probably last.
  • I don’t read the choice of  0000FF  as content-bearing while their use of   (blue) being a poor-man’s choice for lack of a more accurate shade of blue, but quite the opposite.
  • If a darker shade of blue is needed,   (denim) and   (u) are good enough.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tuvalkin, unless you can make a more compelling argument. Useddenim (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Useddenim: Never mind. The actual line colour seems to be closer to   (u). Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Set "o"

previously discussed at Category talk:BSicon/railway/other_colors#Set "o": new light green from w:de

Has anyone ever endorsed a set o with color  61A375 ? The color shade seems somewhere in between  g  and  ex-g .   ~] Newfiz Yo! 15:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. Axpde, Guardian of the Purity of the de:Bilderkatalog and Defender of the Faith of BSicons created the set, apparently for a single diagram but without any sort of consultation at Commons. The “o” seems to stand for Oberleitungsbus (en: trolleybus). Useddenim (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Quite some time ago I somewhere proposed to introduce those set-o-icons into the existing green icons. And Useddenim, master of sarcasm, it was neither my idea nor my work, which you could easily have noticed by checking the cats history! The "set o" was created by MBxd1 so blame him! a×pdeHello! 09:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I explained the use of the o symbols already on Category talk:BSicon/railway/other_colors#Set "o": new light green from w:de. The other dark green colors are already used for other purposes. The main use of the color is for trolleybus maps (currently #61A375 and #A8D4AF for abandoned items), I transferred this to the only diagram created by me. There are some more diagrams, which use currently the blue color and could be changed to green. MBxd1 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that Axpde and I have bestowed honorifics on each other, I admit that I only checked the icons’ creator, and not the category history. Personally, I do not think it is necessary to differentiate between trolleybuses and other surface transit routes, especially with a colour that is similar to set f (footpaths) and set g (unwatered canals)—even after re-reading Category talk:BSicon/railway/other_colors#Set "o": new light green from w:de. Useddenim (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Useddenim above. With the limited number of icons available and the relatively low importance of the route diagrams in which these icons are used (along with the fact that they are not used together with any other colored icons), it is not appropriate for this set to have such a prominent name/prefix, for such a naming scheme will tempt new icon creators to create more badly-named color prefixes. I would suggest either to rename the set to "set #61A375" (or some shade of green), or merge it into set g altogether.   ~] Newfiz Yo! 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
There are so many other colors, which are used for some subways, that I would consider a special color for trolleybuses much more important. It cannot be merged to another color, because they are less suitable for maps (which is the main purpose of this color).
Is this an issue of the name only? Is the name needed for another color? The trolleybus green was never intended to be one of the "standard colors", but I would prefer to avoid a name according to the color numbers, because this might change. MBxd1 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
<sigh>. We went through this before, when de:WP insisted that the Berlin U-bahn absolutely had to have its own colours, but somehow in the end were able to survive with the harmonized set… Useddenim (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not correct. de does not use special colors for the U-Bahn of Berlin. The blue symbols were standard for all subways already, when the symbols were used locally on de and nowhere else. MBxd1 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire, mon ami. For starters, read the #Berlin section above.
We don’t need yet another green; and where were you when we were discussing colors, for months? Useddenim (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion about Berlin U-Bahn colors was never related in any way to German Wikipedia. de never intended to use special colors for single subway routes. MBxd1 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Then remove set o from Commons to de, and that will be the end of it. Useddenim (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
You are writing  redacted , and I should follow your  redacted  advices? No. You never explained, why you want to remove the o symbols, you only wrote  redacted  about the Berlin subway. No actions necessary. MBxd1 (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Before this degenerates into a personal one-on-one argument, shall we take a step back, and ask other project members about their views and suggestions on this issue?   ~] Newfiz Yo! 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There is one page that uses these icons, and the colour is too similar to that of other sets'. The article on the German Wikipedia should probably use the   (u) set. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The set u is not suitable for trolleybuses. Why do we keep a lot of colors for subways, but this one necessary color should be deleted? MBxd1 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is set u not suitable for trolleybuses? en:WP uses both regular and set u icons for bus routes, and set u for Bus Rapid Transit without any problem.
I was going to give MBxd1 the benefit of the doubt regarding his understanding of English, but he apparently is fluent enough to be insulting.
Regardless, the facts are:
  1. There had been ten different shades of green. (See Talk:BSicon/Colors/Archive_1#Determining generic name from RGB above.)
  2. By consensus, that was reduced to five. (f, g, jade, green and lime.)
  3. In April 2013 Axpde questioned, “Do we really need four different shades of green?” (implying that three may even be enough).
  4. When set o was created in January 2014, MBxd1 did not (deliberately or otherwise) add it to the colour table at Category:BSicon/railway/other colors.
  5. In June–August 2014, at both Category talk:BSicon/railway/other_colors#Set "o": new light green from w:de and de:Diskussion:Oberleitungsbus Wuhlehirsk#Farben, MBxd1 claimed that existing colours were unsuitable. (See en:WP:IDL for a discussion of what constitutes a rational argument.)
So, even though MBxd1 may think that he is right and the rest of Wikipedia is wrong, I reiterate that another shade of green is not needed—set g is close enough: File:BSicon oSTR.svg —and if MBxd1 continues to insist that he must use that exact shade, then those icons should be removed from Commons and transferred to de:WP, where they would be available to the one diagram that uses them. Useddenim (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The u symbols are for subways and trams. Trolleybuses are no rail transport, therefore they cannot use the same colorss (de does not use icons for bus transport). This corresponds with the use in maps, in which the different types of transport should be discriminable (again: only red, blue and green, other colors are not needed). Currently there is only one diagram, which uses the icons; but there are many more, which could use them. I didn't push that, because the icons are not complete (and that is also the reason, why I didn't add them to the table). The existing green colors are less visible in maps; although the icon color (which was chosen, because it is a directly accessible color in Corel Draw) was initially intended for existing infrastructure, I would now prefer to redefine it for former infrastructure and chose an even darker color for present infrastructure - a darker green than all other icons. This is the difference to nearly all of the colors, the trolleybus color should also be well visible on maps. MBxd1 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Icons are for whatever use that applied to. Insisting that "u symbols are [only] for subways and trams": well, that ship sailed long ago. (Certainly the Canals people would think otherwise.) You claim to need "only red, blue and green," but then you argue that you really need green, green, green and green! As for choosing a colour because "it is directly accessible in Corel Draw", you should be using a text editor rather than a graphics program for BSicons. And when you mention "infrastructure", are you referring to formations? I would 'strongly caution you to discus that fully and wait for consensus before making any changes there. Useddenim (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, Corel Draw cannot even be used for creating BSicons. It is used for maps, and the colors in maps and icons should be the same. All the subway colors are not necessary. And "infrastructure" is simply the traffic infrastructure, for which the icons are used. MBxd1 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My opinion hasn’t change after my first assessment, but one advantage of having a standardized system for other colors is that it allows new colors to be added in a simple way (like was done with pink, for instance, which was added later). The fact that this particular color shade is too close to others that already exist doesn’t affect the fact that it is easy to add. I can only add two comments:
  • This set is identified with prefix "o" instead of suffix "_neu-grün" (or some such). Will this conflict with existing use of the "o" prefix that means "over/ober"?
  • Once again we witness how the exceptional status given to German language in all things BS (which is rooted in their history) is not matched by an equally gentleman-like collaborative stance by typical BS-icon users of wp:de: Never was the matter previously discussed before the sudden upload of these set-o icons (and BSicon discussions are anything but secretive), and in following discussion, till now, never it was suggested that the new color could be used instead to adapt an existing set — we could discuss, after all, how      and      are perhaps better suited for BS use than, say,      and     , or      and     . No, BS-icon users of wp:de keep contact to a minimum and would even keep their icons locally if they were allowed to. Very sad.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This o set is entirely superfluous. As noted above, f and g sets already exist and can be used for trolleybuses. Why are we even debating the existence of a set to support only one map? Delete the set and replace usage with a similar color set. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lost on Belmont, Tuvalkin, Axpde, Useddenim, and Newfraferz87: Obvious consensus is for deletion of set "o" (5–1); should we do something about it or leave the discussion hanging? Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 09:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Pinging MBxd1 since {{Reply to}} only supports max. 5 usernames. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 09:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Since MBxd1 can't seem to come up with a stronger argument than en:WP:ITSUSEFUL, it's probably time to move this to a formal deletion nomination. Useddenim (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Nominated for deletion. Pinging Lost on Belmont, Tuválkin, Axpde and Newfraferz87. Jc86035 (talk • contributions • uploads) 12:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Set acc?

@Useddenim and Tuvalkin: It might be useful to have a legende-only set for accessible interchange stations without roundels, like   (lINT-L) for matching with   (INTACC-M). Thoughts? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I’m not sure what you’re proposing. A new category? Go ahead an create it. Interchange icons with a #034ea2 border instead of black? Not a good idea. Something else? Explain in more detail. Useddenim (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: Station icons coloured #034ea2; i.e.   (lACC-R) etc. without the accessibility sign. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I’m going to say I disagree, and I’m going to say why, and I’m beating myself for having been postponing bringing up this matter for so long, as it has been bugging me for years. So, we’ve had color troubles with these accessibility icons on stations and halts why? Because the sign is shown as white on a blue roundel. That clashes with the way we use colors for regular stations and halts, a roundel the same color as the line, also for disused ones, and also for interchange stations and halts, a white roundel with a thick black border. Now, why is it blue, and why does it have to be blue?
Answers: Why is it blue? It is blue because the 1st time such an icon was created the dinossaurs still roamed the Earth and BSicon creators would cobble any available SVG with   (STR) and say go (we did have really clunky, horrible designs back then). And why does it have to be blue? Simply, it doesn’t. The well known wheelchair icon has not, and needs not, any specific color. It can be of any color, and it sure can be the color of any BSicon lines we’re using. (Something white on a blue square or ractangle is a international traffic sign for information, while something white on a blue disc is for prohibition, but we need not, and probably should not, be follwoing road traffic regulations.)
Proposal: I suggest we quietly and simply change the color of the roundel from that blue to whichever line color each icon uses for HST and BHF, and change it to black for INT stations.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: I don't mind if we do that. Would icons like   (ACC yellow) and   (extACC3+1 lime) (basically anything closer to white than dark grey) have a black wheelchair for contrast? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sameboat, Lost on Belmont, Axpde, and Newfraferz87: Any thoughts on this? (Assuming the station's shade of red won't be slightly different like in BHFA.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Getting to this a bit late. I have to disagree with the above because the blue background isn't arbitrary. The blue for ACC icons was selected to match the International Symbol of Access. The wheelchair symbol on a blue background is significant for this respect. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep blue, as per Lost on Belmont. Useddenim (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep blue, per Lost on Belmont; in addition, the blue background is occasionally useful for understanding which parts of a station are accessible. The proposed legende stations could just have an extra l prefix (i.e. llACC-R). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Olive green colour

@Tuvalkin, Useddenim, Maxinvestigator, and Lost on Belmont: I've noticed from the upload logs that we don't seem to have a colour which matches the shade of Paris Métro line 3, #837902. Currently set f (#008000) is used for that line on ruwiki (and could probably be used for line 12 (#007852) instead). Is it worthwhile to create another icon set for it? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If set golden (#D7C447) is not good enough (nor any of the others), then lets go a head a create a new one — set olive could work as a name, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Set golden is already used for line 9. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we use X11's #808000 or just the Métro line's colour? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
!vote for  #808000 . Useddenim (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim and Tuvalkin: How are the ex colours calculated? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
50% opacity of base. Useddenim (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Or is it 60%? See Talk:BSicon/Colors/Archive 2#Testing half opacity with colors. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim and Tuvalkin: Using Firefox's colour picker (with 60% on a table background) yields #B2AC64 for the Paris Métro colour and #B0B063 for the X11 colour. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I got something in the neighbourhood of  #c0c090  for  #808000 . Useddenim (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: The method I used matches ex-pink when tested with pink (aside from what's probably a rounding error). Not sure, though. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lost on Belmont: in case you missed it Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of creating new colors as needed and as reasonable, so this seems fine with me. Personally, I prefer #837902, but I don't have any particular objections to #808000 either. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, and Lost on Belmont: I will be uploading a set olive of #837902 ex #B2AC64 as well as reuploading everything in set black as #404040 ex #898989, alongside the renaming of the 90° curves and junctions from lf/rf/rg/lg to l/r/+l/+r. The ex colours made using the method I used match those generated by YLSS for the pinks to within 1⁄256, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with them. (The solution for set black, however, does not help so much in distinguishing   (eDST black)/  (eINT black) without looking at them side by side to figure out which shade of grey is which, so it may alternately be better to change the stroke width of INTs.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(Ignore the comment about set black. It wouldn't have worked very well with e/x INTs.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Motorways

@Useddenim, Tuvalkin, and Newfraferz87: Is the motorway colour supposed to be #003399 or #007CC3 (British motorway signs are #0079C1, almost the same as the latter)? Some icons use the former   (SKRZ-Bo) and some the latter   (uSKRZ-Boq). See also this discussion. Jc86035 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I would think  #007cc3  (or even  #0079c1 ), per Bob1960evens. Useddenim (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Useddenim: In addition, do you think there should be a white line between the two blue lines? Usually highway medians aren't painted white so I'd go for transparent. Jc86035 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Useddenim (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Useddenim per above, wasn't really aware of the color standard (or lack of it).   ~ Newfitz Yo! 08:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Changed most of the icons to use #0079c1 . Jc86035 (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I was pinged, but I have no ideas about this one. Indeed I created the   (RP2) series because back then there was this chaos of multiple incongruous and overspecific road sets, all of them incomplete to boot. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

New color for Moscow Metro

Hi,

The official map and navigational items of Moscow Metro use color #7ED3C9 for Bolshaya Koltsevaya line (a.k.a. Third Interchange Contour), including the currently existing Kakhovskaya line. This color considerably differs from the current sets, including the "Teal" #339999 color that we currently use in templates. Can we create a new set based on the official color?

The closest color among the named ones is "Tiffany Blue" #81D8D0. However, we suspect that using its name may cause problems because it is a colour trade mark. Therefore, we will probably have to name this new set like "Robin egg blue" or "Turquoise", although these colors are a bit different.

What would you suggest? @Tuvalkin, Lost on Belmont, YLSS, and Useddenim: --Michgrig (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The way I usually use BSicons (in Portuguese wikipedia articles about Portuguese rail, metro and tram lines), the detailed diagrams, which are the ones likely to include things like former and planned segments, are created only with   (STR) and   (uSTR). “Other colors” are only used for simple diagrams showing only stations and lines in use. (Compare this and that) But if that’s not the usage you need, then you’ll need a new separate color with its own “ex” variant shade. But icons of that new color wiill either way look very similar to  ex teal ; that will cause problems if/when teal is used for Moscow diagrams. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin, I gave you the link to the template whose icons we are discussing. This is the line under construction. One of its segments is already in operation; another one is going to be opened in Feb-March; the entire line will be complete in several years. And because we usually display prospective segments on diagrams, we do need a separate color with its own "ex" variant. Besides, according to prospective maps (https://imgur.com/Qzl1JM3), Moscow authorities are not planning lines of the teal color. --Michgrig (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Useddenim, colors that you suggest are quite close to what we need. But wouldn't having "exteal" and "ex2teal" while all other colors are names "color" and "ex_color" confuse editors? This is quite different from what many people are already used to. --Michgrig (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The only problem here is inconsistency with all other sets, regarding names of colors. Maybe we could call this color exteal? Then it would be like other sets - say, STR exteal and exSTR exteal. --Michgrig (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
regular ex
teal   (STR teal)   (exSTR teal)
exteal   (exSTR teal)
=
  (STR exteal)		   (exSTR exteal)
Useddenim (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I've re-generated the ex-ex-teal colour in a way closer to how YLSS did it in 2013, although the grey table background is now mixed in twice instead of once. Jc86035 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sample RDT

upper segment is  powderblue 
middle segment is  ex teal 
bottom segment is  b1d6d6 

However, after looking at this example, I agree that  b1d7d7  should be the correct colour. Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Another color for Moscow Metro

Hi again, For another line, we need another ex-color. As the main color, we plan to use exruby. Please advice us, what should be the ex-color? --Michgrig (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I get a value of  #df8db7  for ex-exruby (although that may not be 100% correct). Useddenim (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, could you please confirm? --Michgrig (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig and Useddenim: I got  #E89FC4 . Jc86035 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
My color picker gives inconsistent results when switching between applications, but the lighter #e89fc4 looks more accurate to me. Useddenim (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Two new colors for Moscow Metro

Official color Existing icon sets RGB distance
#1AC1F3 azure 48.672
sky 52.154
cerulean 79.246
ex-azure 128.039
ex-sky 78.651
ex-cerulean 95.105
ex-blue 82.207
ex-denim 94.895
deepsky
#F58232 saffron 42.391
orange 58.172
ex-orange 43.058
ex-ochre 63.166
ochre 70.463
carrot 24.042

Hi all, In Ruwiki, we recently found out that colors used by diagrams of Moscow Metro lines are quite far from the colors used by the official map and, therefore, decided to try to make them closer. However, for some of the lines colors of existing icon sets do not fit. Please take a look:

So, if possible, please create two more icon sets for our maps. --Michgrig (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim and Tuvalkin: Maybe it's time to let new colours be created for arbitrary RGBs, even if they're somewhat close to other colours which already have sets? It's now feasible (for me, at least) to download thousands of BSicons and convert them all to a new set in about ten minutes with find-and-replace (e.g. by downloading, editing and uploading every icon and duplicating every category in set pink), and it's not like there's a tangible limit on how many files Commons can have. (And categories can now automatically be added for a lot of icons with Module:BSicon.) Jc86035 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
icon
background
ex-sky
1ac1f3
orange
f58232
I dunno. Although I agree in principle, these existing colours seem close enough. Useddenim (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, if new sets can be created quickly and if we are not limited in the amount of files on Commons, are there any other reasons not to fulfill our request?
I understand that other people may want to have other colors created. But maybe it's resonable to set a certain threshold value of RGB proximity: if the color of any of the existing sets is closer than this threshold, a new set is not created; if there are no existing colors in the neiborhood of the requested one, a new set is allowed. Also, for the convenience of all people, there might be a diagram showing all colors of existing sets. --Michgrig (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig: There's a table at Template:BS-color, and one at the top of Category:BSicon/railway/other colors. Jc86035 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: It seems that there are no other reasons not to do what we asked. Could you please create new icon sets, carrot and deepsky? --Michgrig (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig: Sure; before I upload, is there a reason for using colours that are slightly different to the original line colours? There's nothing wrong with just using the original colours, or something closer to them. Jc86035 (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: The suggested colors are the closest named colors. We considered it incorrect either to upload icons of a slightly different color under the name of an existing color or to invent a custom name for the color we need. --Michgrig (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig: Okay. I'll notify you when I've uploaded the files. Jc86035 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the creation of these two colours, as there are existing ones (ex-sky and orange) that are close enough. We managed to harmonize Tokyo and Berlin, so there's no reason that Moscow can't follow suit. Useddenim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Useddenim and Michgrig: I won't be creating the icons yet, I guess. It would be helpful to define a minimum RGB distance, perhaps based on the current smallest RGB distance between two sets. Jc86035 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • While I don’t disagree, it should be noted that the algebric distance between any two points in the RGB cube is not always a good proxi for the human optical similarity impression between their color shades. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, color is very subjective and monitors go out of calibration, so a !vote might be the only practical way. Useddenim (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
existing colors saffron orange
official colors Tokyo Berlin 1 Moscow Berlin 2
suggested color carrot
  • @Useddenim and Jc86035: From the table on the right, you can see that the new color we suggest fits much better for the three lines out of four. It is not sensible to keep insisting on using an existing color for all cases only on the which comes first basis, while it is not very close to several official colors at once. Orange and saffron are considerably different, and there are no shades of orange in between. This is the gap that we suggest to fill. As you can see, the new color can be used not only for Moscow.
  • As for the new blue color. As Tuvalkin said, it is evidently for a human eye that no existing shade of blue, including ex-sky, are not quite close, regardless of the RGB proximity value. And even if we use exsky, we will have to additionally upload ex-exsky icons and to create redirects from ex-sky to exsky. --Michgrig (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig: I have now looked at this discussion on 7 different monitors/devices, and I now feel that there is a sufficient difference to allow for a new "carrot"; but I still think that exsky is close enough to the blue that you want. In general I would prefer an extension to existing colours rather than adding new ones. Also, redirects are cheap. Useddenim (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
One more reason that we can think of: first lines of Moscow Metro, except for Circular Line, were colored according to the Russian 7-color rainbow. None of the existing shades of blue are close to the blue as it is understood in Russia. Besides, exsky seems somewhat dirty. Btw, I've added deepsky to the table at the beginning of this topic, for the visibility sake. --Michgrig (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, I suppose there are no objections to creating the carrot set. If you agree, could you please create it while we are waiting for the response from @Useddenim and Tuvalkin: concerning our latest arguments. --Michgrig (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michgrig: Where'd you get the "carrot" colour from? I was not aware there was such a thing. Jc86035 (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, all of these colors were provided by my colleagues in Ruwiki. I'm not the driver of this process but rather a messenger :) --Michgrig (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035: "Carrot" (together with "deepsky" #00BFFF) are suggested new colors. --Michgrig (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Michgrig: Sorry it took me so long; I've been busy with other things. Since some set deepsky icons were uploaded yesterday, and I don't think it would be possible to unilaterally delete them through the Commons deletion process with consensus on ruwiki that the icons are useful, I've uploaded about 1,600 icons for both the carrot and deepsky sets. Jc86035 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Road colors

A recent edit added road colors to Template:BS-colorlist, but some advertised road colors are in conflict with past/current mapping practice, so quite a bunch of road icons obtainable on commons now use different colors in comparison to the ones recently documented. This applies to at least Category:BSicon/road/RA and Category:BSicon/road/RM pair.

Is there any past reference in the talk archives of Talk:BSicon/Colors explaining the mismatch? Has this been discussed previously elsewhere, e.g. on en:wikipedia?

The mismatching colors on display:

object recently documented in BS-colorlist de facto standard / past or current practice
RA EF161E FF0000
FFD702 FFFF00
RM F37176 E07070
FFEB81 F0F080
↑ standard BSicon colors ↑ uncorrected legacy colors

Considering the amount of different authors needed to consent upon this change to adjust all the past uploads, what exactly is the benefit of not just sticking to current practice?

Although its possible to slowly migrate this will disrupt visual appearance of route diagrams making use of these icons and bulk upload/replacement at once needs broad consensus first, doesn't it?

If there already is consensus, please link it here and think about creating a month task/challenge to replace legacy icons if bulk replacement isn't an option. --91.55.166.18 13:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests/Archive 3#Highway medians. (There was also another discussion that I can't locate at the moment.) A related discussion is at Talk:BSicon/Colors/Archive 3#Motorways. There is ample precedent for standardizing colors and geometry. Furthermore, please do not create new talk pages that no one will see; just start a new topic thread on one of the existing pages. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, please show me where it says that road icons are not to be drawn to the standard width, and where incorrect icons are supposed to be left as is? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
"incorrect" needs a reference and please don't be offended, but you are "late to the party" if you try to impose your understanding of a standard onto the data that exists since years. Like it or not, this data is coherent and thus serves as a reference in itself. Do you claim having a consensus with all the authors having uploaded road icons to "correct" them post-factual on large scale in the way you see fit?
There is prior practice on the one hand and your strict understanding of a standard that does not differentiate between road and rail in many respects. If you are to fight prior practice then please, by all means, do so completely, instead of creating tons of mismatches. It is less invasive however to just stick with prior practice, because
  • lots of icons are used productively - if you change them in a quest for strict conformance to the standard it is very likely to break existing route diagrams
  • there may be lots of dissent from original authors with replacements
  • future contributions may be less frequent if authors are discouraged by the induced belief that original work is not honoured
Most users and people not as experienced as you will simply accept what they see as the defacto standard (the prior practice). This poses a problem for you if you 'correct' road icons at a pace of one or two by week. Users notice that your uploads are rather recent and in opposition to prior practice. Users that actually use the icons as building blocks in route diagrams will also notice that your 'new' icons simply do not fit the diagram with other, previous stock BSicons. Hence you will continuously see attempts to 'correct' what you intend to be 'correct'.
If you feel you have the power to exchange all of them at a quicker pace, then go ahead. Otherwise it may be best to stick with prior practice for now, even if you personally dissent and the reasons are apt. On a parallel track, if there are more users in favour of repeating a standardizing effort with the stock data, one could try to organize (best with a published timeline on these talk pages) a scheduled bulk exchange, with less risk of damaging the appearance of existing route diagrams.
As for the colour mismatch only, we could probably very easily automate the process exchanging these. Even if we have a consensus for this on a small scale, it won't be that of all the previous authors involved. Unless you have a superb idea how to establish such a consensus up front, you're left with trial-and-error: do the bulk replace and hope your change is accepted.
As for the widths: I don't think rail and road lines should have the same standard width, even if we did not have existing data as precedent. In reality road and rail width rarely match and even if we argue with abstraction, it won't make much sense, because it won't be long and users will realize that e.g. a dirt road set is just a colour variant of a rail set. In short: Dedicated road widths ensure that graphic elements are percepted indeed as a different entity.
--Cmuelle8 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
A look at the header of Category:BSicon/road shows all the different road types. Unlike rail, widths vary, e.g. motorway lines are drawn with greater width than RP1 or RE, RY, for instance. There is a clear relation between line width and road class. This would be lost if 100 units was the default for all or a majority. RE, RY are close to 100, RP1 uses 75 units, RD at 50. There will be lots of work if all of this is condemned incorrect for the sole reason that it wasn't documented at the time it evolved as de facto standard. Specifically for RA and RM the middle and outer line widths should be equal, it has been derived from prior practice elsewhere. --91.55.175.37 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, but there is a logical reason for standardizing the widths at the "default" value of 100: editors continue to use icons in ways not envisioned by the original uploaders. Keeping uniform widths and colours allows for "mix 'n' match"ing. I personally can't see a reason why to place   (STRq yellow) next to   (RAq) next to   (STRq red) (or   (fSTRq) and   (RGq) – you get the idea), but someone else might feel the need. RP2 can be mixed with set grey, 75 (RP1) is the same width as the   (WASSER) set, and   (RD1) is the same 50px width as every other narrow icon.
Your vaunted "prior practice" is really just a free-for-all. Before several dedicated editors tackled the task of fixing and standardising things, there were approximately three times as many colours as now, formations were 40, 50 and 60 px wide with little regularity as to their placement,   (INT) and   (DST) circle sizes and widths varied from editor to editor… The clean-up took months, and at the time the roadway and canal-specific icons were left for "another day". Your creation of a new "standard" (/set x/set y/ instead of /set mixed/) just prompted a couple of use to take a look at things again. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Colours and shades

Dear all,

I’ve only recently become acquainted with this section of the internet (hi?). Budding rail enthusiast here, currently doing my MSc in Town Planning. I’ve got a background in Quality Control and Assurance, so I understand the need for asset control and rationalisation, but in an age where many cities and regions have transport systems with defined and established colour schemes and brand consistency is a big deal, why we’re constraining the colour sets to such a narrow set. If someone wants to create a series of sets that align with their city or region’s transport modes, implement them in an area of Wikipedia, all whilst adding and modifying and need be, why shouldn’t we let them?

I realise as I write this that I’m probably going to be told that the difference between the existing colours and any regional variations is minimal and we don’t want folks mixing different shades in the same diagram by accident, hence the separation, but it really shouldn’t be as complicated as all that. I appreciate that you’ve all spent a lot of time rationalising colours and comparing shades and usages over the years. I appreciate and respect it. However I do ask that you ease controls somewhat. I’ve read back through your archives, so I know your arguments for and against this proposal. However, these debates were a decade ago and I think they need reconsidering. Oldhamtw (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oldhamtw: In the past, the naming and design of many of the icons was iterated upon more frequently, and some commonly used icons were not "finalized" in terms of their naming or design until several years ago. It would have made sense to restrict the amount of colours to reduce the maintenance burden and to make things less confusing.
Moving to a model where sets can be introduced on an ad hoc basis would cause users to create and upload icons that are essentially only used for a very small number of diagrams. This would also be potentially undesirable, even if it would improve the accuracy of the colours used in the diagrams. If this approach were taken, it would significantly increase the amount of time it would take to create diagrams for a new system, since almost all of the files used would have to be newly created.
I don't disagree with the idea that it would be better if the colours could be more accurate, but presumably the practical limitations on doing this have not quite gone away. Jc86035 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BSicon/Colors/Archive_3&oldid=810279233"