Active provider chest => Trash chest

[DaveMcW]

"Active provider chest" should be renamed to "Trash chest".

This is consistent with "logistic trash slots", since it does the same thing. "Active provider" does not mean anything in English.

[brunzenstein]

The exact opposite you mentioned is needed to be mended as the "logistic trash slots" dont trash anything but provides and inserts transparent its content thankfully to the logistic network. For a non native english speaker (the overwhelming majority here) like me the wording "active provider" is ok. and I fully understand what it stands for and I have no problem with.
"logistic trash slots" should indeed be renamed "logistic storage inserter"e.g. therefore.

[ssilk]

When I'm not completely wrong, then I would say the logistic trash slots are implemented as active providers...

[tobsimon]

Active/passive provider really is not the clearest naming. Some alternatives:

• Replenishment chest
• Push provider chest

I like replenishment, since the function bears some resemblance to the actual process in logistics by that name. But I'm not sure how understandable that word is and even if native speakers would understand it similarly to what I think it means.

[bobingabout]

Active Provider might not be the clearest name for English, but this is kind of a debate that has gone on several dozen times already, and hasn't changed yet, so likely won't.

However... Trash does imply that the item is destroyed (It is waste, unwanted material, therefore safe to destroy), not exactly what you might want to do with your 50 accumulators you just built by hand that you want your construction bots on your network to place(Maybe no personal roboport, or maybe just not in range), so your instinct would be to place them in a chest manually, rather than just move them to your Trash slots.

Renaming Logistic Trash slots to be consistant with the active provider would be favourable for clarity than to rename the Active Provider to a Trash chest (As the name in English suggests a chest that deletes any item placed inside it).



In English though, Active and Passive do have meanings that fit the context, they just don't go well with the word Provider.

To actively provide something does mean to constantly give it. Think of a natural disaster as an example, to actively provide support, usually means you're right there, lending a helping hand.(A more common phrase in English would be to "Get involved", even if "Active Support" is perfectly valid.) To Passively provide support might be to just throw some money at it, which does help, but you're not actively getting involved with it.(See what I did there? I didn't even see it until re-reading, I described Passive as "Not active", then used my example of what is usually said instead directly after. Anyway, a more common way to describe giving money would just be to "Provide support" or to "Support the cause", the word passive is not really used in this case, even though it is the inverse of Active in this context.)

So the meaning is there in English, it's just fugly in this situation. (And still makes a lot more sense to the situation than "Trash")

So from what I said above, the Passive provider chest would work better if it was just called a "Provider" chest, and the Active renamed to something that sounds much more forceful that it is getting involved. The issue, and reason why people can't think of a name that most people will like, or agree on is that the entire concept isn't something someone an English speaker would apply to a chest. The chest Demands attention, but the word demand itself would be of a meaning closer to Requester chest, I mean, it is performing a request, or command, that something on the network empties it, just the same as a requester chest demands something on the network fills it. Naming this chest, that makes sense to an English speaker is an enigma, a puzzle, something that is difficult to solve.

Solutions an English speaker might understand are things like an "Empty me chest", which, although clear, and would instantly be understood, is a very bad name.

What we need is a very clear, and clean name, to explain the action "I request that you empty me".
The name "Provider" says "I offer you this stuff to take as you need it".
The name "Requester" says "I ask that you give me these items".
And the name "Storage" says "Use my space as needed to store items".
All perfectly valid and clean names for the purpose. "Active provider" seems forced, just like "Empty me" seems messy. And that's why English speakers dislike it, and find them hard to understand.

Names like "Distributer" would fall into the same issues as "Provider", they're both Giving words on the same level, what you want is a giving word that feels forceful on it's own, without adding a forceful prefix like Active... The issue is not only finding the word, but finding one that most people will instantly recognise and understand.

To help find the answer, I turned to a thesaurus. Provider gives pretty much nonsense results. Distribution does however give some fairly good sugestions.


Diffuser or Dispersal chest do seem like the most appropriate. Diffuser would be my preference.

[steinio]

Nice writing.

I just googled Thesaurus for share like a sharing chest and serving or contribution sounds nice i guess.

[immibis]

Trash does not imply the item is destroyed. When I put stuff in my trash can, it is not destroyed.

It does imply the item is unwanted, though. In the case of logistics trash slots, you don't want the item right now, even though you don't want it to be destroyed either. In the case of active provider chests, you clearly do want the item, or you wouldn't be producing it. (The exception being when you replace a non-empty chest with an active provider to clear it out before removing it; in that case it would make sense to call it trash)

[brunzenstein]

Trash does not imply the item is destroyed. When I put stuff in my trash can, it is not destroyed.

true enough!