This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Villages, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.VillagesWikipedia:WikiProject VillagesTemplate:WikiProject VillagesVillages articles
@User6000000 Can you explain why you want an image of a sign only saying "Alikhan"? This does not improve the article at all, as the name of this village is already known by the page title and the infobox header. We do not need any "icon" on the page; can you explain what you mean insisting we do need one? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ICON, Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. A sign that just says the name of the settlement, again, does not enhance the article and thus should not be in the article, even if you think it "looks better". It's completely fine not to have any icon. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is what I said, that we don't need it at all and icons should not be there just for decorative purposes. Why are you so insistent on having an icon? It does not improve the experience for the reader or (searcher) in any way by merely having an image of a sign saying the name of the settlement. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insistent on removing it, you're just not adequately explaining why you want the image at all. Bytes and space is almost never a problem, you're just not giving an answer why we should have the image at all when it conveys no information not already given by simply reading the page. Again, we do not use icons for solely decorative purposes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but that is different as it conveys more information than just the word "Alikhan" and its Kurdish form, as that is a calligraphic panel rather than just a sign. Ali is also a person, and the infobox for people usually shows an image of that person, and the calligraphic panel is in a way an image of the person, while infoboxes for settlements usually show, if images are present, notable or historic monuments and places in the city, while a sign of the name of the settlement is neither notable nor special. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a notable place in the village is a flat giant rock cut in middle by a lightning bolt around 100-200 years ago, is that good enough? User6000000 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
