Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Templates nominated for deletion

Flag related tfd of {{BILru}} and {{PIru}} have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 10 Gnevin (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag

I was not aware that this specific template is reserved for use only within article space. While the text of the template article suggests "article(s)", it also states the following:

The intention of this tag is to nudge fellow editors who may inadvertently (or otherwise) introduce text that appears based upon original research, into supporting such text through demonstrating its previously researched origins. This tag provides a good faith means for editors to allow given text of fellow editors to remain temporarily in a given article until such time as the text's previously researched origins are supported.

Template:Or

The key phrase here being, I think, "editors who may [..] introduce text that appears based upon original research". This manual of style guideline 'article' may be in 'Wikipedia space', however, it has been created and modified by "fellow editors" and as such is not beyond criticism and/or scrutiny. Perhaps there is a tag specifically for Wikipedia space articles that I am not aware of.

Garion96, please keep your groaning internal (re your edit summary). Everyone is entitled to put forth their viewpoint on policy and re-examine, whether you like it, dis/agree with it or not. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is fair icon and symbol use?

This is getting ridiculous! I understand that there are political concerns over use of flags, i.e. territory marking etc. I also understand the concern for excessive decoration distracting from information. There may even be a shortage of storage space on wikicommons servers. But this removal of generic icons and symbols representing a subject matter in an article is getting out of hand. I know that it may be subjective at times, but after earning a bachelors degree in communication arts and 15 years experience as a communication designer, I know the difference between decorative and informative. Some icons and symbols, especially the ones removed from the multimedia article were informative. We all have heard the phrase "a picture is worth 1000 words". Some icons and symbols have universal meaning. You can look no further than these translations of the article to see just how informative the icons are. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] In a few of those examples that are stubs size, the icons all but carry the article. Just an example of how informative and universally intuitive an icon can be.

Let's not get overzealous to remove icons. Just because they are not photographs or bar charts, doesn't automatically mean they're childish or exclusively decorative. Even if they look a little cute, keep in mind that many young people (probably more than not) read the wikipedia, especially articles like multimedia. Also, consider that many readers are visual learners. If you don't understand that, then you probably aren't a visual learner. But that's no reason to deny other readers the visual learning aid that may come from generic icons or symbols. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With out the link below them the icons are useless as they could convey a 1000 different means. Not to mention how childish and unprofessional they lookGnevin (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost any picture on wikipedia would be meaningless without a caption or an article showing context. What you are calling childish is a matter of personal taste. I'd be surprised if you could specify in professional graphic design terms what exactly is childish about the icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of those images are gratuitous and far too vague to be "visual learning aids". How is an image of a numeric keypad with superimposed arrows a good representation of "Non-linear interactive"? Or a globe over a box with red and green lights to represent "online streaming"? (What is that supposed to be, anyway?) I think the use of iconic images is totally inappropriate here. Icons (in general) are visual shortcuts when space is a premium, such as on an application toolbar. Most icons are really best-effort attempts at something meaningful, but usually fall short. They only attain value once the user makes the association in their head, and then the value comes from the quick access to application functionality or associative meaning. For example, Excel uses a little globe with a short segment of chain for the "Insert Hyperlink" function. That's a bit on the lame side, but the tooltip text string helps, and once I remember that, the icon itself has meaning for me only from my remembrance of its function. In the context of a Wikipedia article, space is not at a premium, so there is no useful value whatsoever for trying to create an association between a vague, generic icon and a concept that is fully explained in the prose text of the article. Please replace them with images that truly explain or represent article topics, such as "A lasershow is a live multimedia performance". Now that is a useful image for the article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Space and time in ones mind is at a premium, especially when dealing with short attentions spans of today. If someone can glance at a picture and get a quick idea of what the text is about, perhaps drawing them in to read further, then that's a good thing. Anyone who doesn't see the meaning of the icons in context should be worried about their own literacy skills. You can't deny the evidence of how meaningful the icons are when you consider how many translations have used them as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste translations of this singlular en.wiki article is hardly a stunning endorsement of the value of those icons. More relevant would be the number of other en.wiki articles that use these images. The answer to that question is "none". You still fail to address my main point, which is that illustrative pictures of key topics in the article prose are far more valuable than icon images with dubious linkage to those concepts. I'm advocating image replacement in articles like this, not image removal. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to translate an article and maintain the context in another language simply by cutting and pasting. That must be some cool software they are using. Doesn't explain why some of those articles pre-date the use of icons in the English multimedia article.

I'm not against replacing images either. I compromised in the design article and replaced the icons with photographs. But if an illustrated icon can be just as effective as a photograph for visual communication, why not use it? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Those icon images are not "just as effective as a photograph". They are contrived, unclear, and gratuitous. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm open to replacement. Find the photographs that are clearer, more concise and more intuitive than the icons and we'll give it a try.Oicumayberight (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic question in the title of this subtopic has yet to be answered. If it doesn't get answered, then the Template:Icon-issues is a joke. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For me fair icon usage is that

a) which is already commonly known such as the Olympics logo or b) A crest ,coats of arms in the article they represent c) Icons outside the main space can be created for wiki projects etc. as the project member feel the need for them. Creating icons is WP:OR for me as well as numerous other issues. Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand:

1. You are against using icons for anything other than identity of a well-known (outside wikipedia) group, organization, or territory in a related article.
2. You are against using illustrations that aren't graphic organizers or information graphics, as they could be seen as meaningless decoration.
3. You are against any style applied to illustrations as it could be seen as decorative or childish.

Is that correct? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For icon's I am against creating Icons for wiki's mainspace. When we have a WP:Notable groups, organizations, or territories it is correct to use their icon in the related main article. Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any difference between and illustration and an icon? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Gnevin's point about Wikipedia:No original research is correct. I will state it another way: If there is a well-known association outside Wikipedia between an icon and a concept/object/organization/nation/whatever, then it is probably fair use to use that icon on Wikipedia articles as a shorthand form for that thing. But it would be a form of original research for Wikipedia to make that association between an icon image and the item in question. The latter is precisely what was being attempted by showing with the caption "Linear Presentation" on the Multimedia article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So if I had shown the clock with a caption that spelled out the association to the effect of "linear presentations involved time, and not interactivity, and clocks are used to measure time" that would have been better? Look, I understand that the clock was a little more vague than the headphones to represent audio or a camcorder to represent video. Not everyone gets it. In favor of your position, more accurate evidence of the vagueness than one user's opinion is the fact that only 4 of the 16 foreign translations used that icon and association. But in favor of my position, all 16 translators used the top 6 icons, which aren't as vague. It's also proof that there was much selective thought in translating the meaning of icons in those articles, contrary to your "just cut and paste" comment, which any of the 16 translators may find insulting on the off chance they read this. I wonder if Gnevin would have been as quick to delete the icons had he known about the 16 translations. Maybe the wikipedia logo should be a picture of scattered pieces of a puzzle instead of the neatly connected globe.

I'm not going to go round and round on this issue. The only reason why I opened this discussion here is because this essay about icons style can easily be interpreted as policy and is very shortsighted about the potential for visual learning on wikipedia. It always surprises me when I survey that it's mostly teenagers that speak favorable about the wikipedia. They are growing up in a media rich society. If wikipedia is only edited to the personal taste of the dull older conservative editors, we could be turning off our future advocates for the free online collaborative encyclopedia. Probably more adults than not are also visual learners and just don't know it or won't admit it. I understand and agree that photos make the article appear more encyclopedic than icons. This isn't Wikipedia, The Free Online Encyclopedia for Dummies. But a rush to delete icons with little consideration for how well they may have worked for others, and no consideration for how the original intent of the editor may be preserved or improved is just throwing out the baby with the bath water. You said you advocated replacement, not removal, but removal was the result, and probably will remain that way for months denying many readers the benefit of visual learning. I'd be surprised a year from now if the original idea is improved on. I wouldn't be surprised if in two years time, the original idea gets restored as it was or very similar. But this is not just about that article. It's about careful consideration of what was working graphically and how to make it work better through wikipedia. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note this is a guideline and WP:OR is a PolicyGnevin (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the multimedia article, original images were not used. Had I created the images, I would have been much more offended by your haste to delete them without discussion on that talk page. And even if they were original, there's obviously some room here for original work. The policy states:

"Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing publicly available images available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."

I interpret that last part to mean some interpretation is allowed as long as it's not a completely new idea or suggestion. If it were completely new, very few people if anyone would get the analogy. Even in the case of the clock, it made sense to at least a quarter of the people who translated that article or they wouldn't have included it in their versions. Showing it here by itself the way User:Andrwsc showed it didn't make as much sense because it wasn't used to contrast the difference between categories as it was in the article, side by side with the other image. Only half of the story was being told.

Linear Presentation	Non-linear Interactive

Once you tell the complete story, it makes more sense.

If we start getting too strict on how graphics can be used on wikipedia, the next step would be strictness on how text can be used. For example, you could say that anything that is not word-for-word from an external source is original research. I doubt there is an article on wikipedia in which every statement is word-for-word from a source. And since multiple sources are encouraged, there is no way to tell a complete story from multiple sources without some interpretation or editing. The WP:OR policy gives graphic editors the same if not more flexibility than text editors for reasons stated in that policy. Showing tools to represent what is achieved by those tools is hardly a new idea, especially for things you can't see, like audio or time. What next? Should we be deleting icons from Wikipedia:Portals? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your extract above refers to cases like Image:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg which was created as the original is WP:Copyrighted by the IRFU thus as it does not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments its ok , the icons are a wiki creation , I've never seen them before outside wiki. A other example is Image:Gaelic_football_pitch_diagram.svg an orginal Wiki image but based on an published idea, that of markings on a GAA pitchGnevin (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that you've never seen a clock or a number keypad outside of wikipedia or that you don't know those images are of a clock or a keypad? These are generic symbols here, that can be used to symbolize many things. So every time a generic symbol is used to symbolize something, there should be a referenced source? We better get rid of all those symbols on portals such as the Portal:Society. They aren't for specific use like a flag or markings on field. They are generic symbols, like the webdings font. When generic symbols are used, they are not new ideas or suggestions, but instead a figure of speech. And when it's something that can actually be used to achieve the element or concept, it's almost literal. If I show a picture of scissors when talking about cutting, are you going to expect to see those scissors being used before you make the connection in your mind that they are for cutting? Maybe you can't make a connection between a symbol and what it means without a caption explaining how it's analogous or related, but there are billions of other people who can. Wikipedia:Civility lists feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" as engaging in incivility. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to WP:AGF? As for portals,projects etc.While they are often on the main space they are not part of it and as such i've said several times before For icon's I am against creating Icons for wiki's mainspace projects and portals can do as they wish as when not directly related to the articles mainspace. Anyway i think this has been discussed to death at this stage so I am going to take my leave from this discussion .I consider this matter closed Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be closed for you. It isn't closed for me until you stop enforcing personal taste and ignoring facts in the process. Even if I get tired or get banned, it isn't over for users like me as long is this careless reverting of graphics persists. If you are going to write a style guide that could easily be interpreted as policy and then use that to justify reverting other editors' work, be prepared for objections. If your guide regards the way graphics are used on wikipedia, be prepared for feedback from users who know at least a little about graphic design. But since many graphic designers have probably been driven away by other users similar to you, using such forceful tactics as the ones you have been using here in the past week, you probably aren't going to get as much feedback from people who actually know in professional terms how best to handle graphics on wikipedia as deserved. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should get rid of all these "meaningless abstract" icons from maintenance templates too.

After all, these templates are included in mainspace articles. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely you can see the difference between an icon that appears on almost 24000 pages—and therefore has a recognizable meaning to the Wikipedia community—and an icon that you used on a single page, in an instance where it did not improve the article....? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But they were not just icons used by me on a single page. The icons were used on 16 other translations of the article. Why do I keep having to say that? Global recognition that goes beyond language barriers is not sufficient, but assumed recognition within wikipedia readers and editors is sufficient. Smells like a double standard to me. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Images as icons in lists dispute

Interested parties should see the discussion at WT:Lists#Thumbnails_instead_of_bullets and, to view the usage in question, this: [17]. Sswonk (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dooba-what?

cross-posted to WT:Lists#Thumbnails instead of bullets as I'm unsure where the conversation's going from here.
Yikes, no! Aside from the aesthetics (or lack thereof), checking out the thumbnail to the right, who's who? Taking into account different browsers and screen resolutions, that's a confusing and/or misleading at best. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death???????????

The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is forbidden, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc. without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality.

For info boxes this rule is assinine (and I have a right to that opinion)! So what if Willis gets a German flag by mistake? Someone will come along and correct it. Inferring in Wikipedia's official guidelines that this might hurt Willis's reputation somehow amounts to an ethnic slur (against Germans in this case). If you are American but die in another country that country and its flag become an irrefutable part of your biography (if you did something nice there and you're lucky they might even be kind enough to put their flag on your coffin while transporting it home). The ethnic arrogance of objecting to that is almost sickening (another opinion I have right to). Sincerely, Fiandonca (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Recommending that people not use flags is precisely so that people don't complain (or get into edit wars) about "ethnic arrogance". Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This MOS isn't making any slurs or statements about any nationalities . The Willis example also doesn't imply it would be a slur on his character to be German just incorrect. The whole point is that adding a German flag while correct (note you said someone would remove it this would be incorrect) could give the impression to the reader that he was German.Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate use

They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as many readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icons. This never really flew with me .I'd like to remove it from the appropriate usage and suggest current list using icons instead use sortable tables. What are other feelings on this Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you personally, but you'd have a hard time convincing the sports people. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not every table is arranged as a simple set of rows, one line per item. See 2006 FIFA World Cup for useful usage in match results and tournament brackets. Also, column width may be a scarce resource on some tables, so a flag icon is a very useful shorthand for a longer country name. See List of Calgary Flames players for an example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well sport people have a subset on this MOS (not that anyone follows it) . For List of Calgary Flames players isocodes could be used.Are you referring to this section ? Gnevin (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that "isocodes" are any more helpful than flag icons on tables like that. And my point about the football article was more directed to the match result tables starting at the 2006 FIFA World Cup#Round of 16 section and also for the tournament bracket summary in the 2006 FIFA World Cup#Knockout stage section. I would say that the "Seeds" section could be considered a "legend" of sorts for the sections that follow. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The sections you linked to are not tables and so would not be affected by my proposed changes. The advantage of ISO codes over flags is that they are sortable and as such are infinitely more helpful in aiding navigation than scanning the table Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's good to bring up proposed changes to MOS pages, it really isn't appropriate to make changes to the guidelines which incorporate some somewhat major stylistic changes [18] prior to approaching it on the talk page. There needs to be clear consensus on this first. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes I made weren't major for my point of view and so I made them. Feel free to WP:BRD them. Gnevin (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinions of clapper flag icons

Image:Irelandfilm.png and Image:United States film.png and [19]. These are the definition of inventing and WP:OR too me Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them original research since they're not used in the "encyclopedic part" of normal articles, nor would I call them a violation of this guideline's "inventing" clause, as they are not purported to be flags of anything. They are mostly used in stub templates, such as {{US-film-bio-stub}}, similar to having a flag element in stub templates like {{England-footy-bio-stub}}. I don't think stub template icons ought to be covered under this guideline, as there seems to be very wide consensus for them (although, surprisingly,Wikipedia:Stub#New stub templates does say "Adding a small image to the stub template (the "stub icon") is generally discouraged"). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I would say that the complete set of Category:Film country list templates, which use these images for vertical navigation boxes, is another topic for debate... That is, I guess I don't object to the clapperboard flag icon images themselves—if they are used "properly". As a stub template icon, sure. As a decorative image in a navigation template in the main article body, probably not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The are invented icons which are show in a very prominent way in the main space . See {{CinemaoftheUS}} and {{Americanfilmlist}}. I know stubs are considered outside this scope of this MOS and i have no issues with the stub, I didn't know it was being used by the stub template and if i had i would have made it clearer i was not refering to that sort of usage Gnevin (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All icons are "invented". I had long understand the clause of this guideline to mean "don't invent a flag", but I see the current text is broader than that. Was that intentional? I don't think it should be. But I think we agree on this specific instance—the problem isn't with the images per se, nor the widespread use in stub templates, but it is possibly a problem as decorative images in navigation templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All icons maybe invent but if they are invented just of wiki they are WP:OR. It was intentional when the mos moved from just flags to icons but we are in agreement in relation to the nav templates Gnevin (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

I encountered an editor who thinks this edit is allowed by this guideline. I am pretty sure it is not although perhaps it could be better spelled out in the guideline. Garion96 (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death

Shortcut:

WP:FLAGBIO

The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is forbidden, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. "

Can't get much clearer than this Gnevin (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All true, but it was not used to indicate locations of birth and death but to indicate nationality. Garion96 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Infobox person" template for biographical articles has an entry specifically to indicate NATIONALITY, separate from "place of birth"/"place of death". The WP:Flagbio ruling states only that use of flag icons in birth/death information is "forbidden" as it may imply nationality. It does NOT state that flag icons may never, under any circumstances, be used in a biographical infobox, which is how some editors have chosen to interpet it. Since the "nationality" line exists, and the flag is a visual indicator of citizenship/nationality, there is nothing wrong with the above example per WP:FLAGBIO. --MChew (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)