Jump to content

Talk:Icon (computing)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What does this mean?

From the article:

And where is it from? Erudecorp ? * 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

฿ghhdghdg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.216.251 (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is a computer icon?

This article is currently of value for its external references to style guides. When teaching a child to use a computer, the importance of icons design comes to the forefront. Icons are more easily defined for object-oriented graphical interfaces, where they represent objects; objects instantly recognizable to everyone, independent of culture or language. The object, such as a telephone, can be stylized for different cultures - but it is still a telephone.

We are currently struggling with visual icons; but audio icons were, at one time, thought very exciting to programmers: the sound of a piece of paper being shuffled, then a ream being dropped onto a surface. (This assumes the printer is out of sight.) The article is a good place for experts on this subject to discuss the agreed-upon purpose & philosophy of good icon design. At the moment, the article simply touches on some technical details. It needs experts. Geologist (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are icons of mid-importance?

This article is currently rated 'mid-importance'. I suggest it should be rated much higher.

As the World communicates better, the icon will represent internationally recognized objects. A second measure of value I can best describe by an anecdote. Once a client asked the firm's new computing system to be easily & immediately used by temporary workers. For this I chose OS/2's OOUI, expanding each desktop to a firm's room. ('Opening' doors changed rooms. :-) Now the icons represented physical objects in each room, and the movement of a secretary in a room was the same as that of a pointer icon on the screen. Selecting & opening (click, click) a file-case icon revealed a set of drawer icons. Doing the same with the 'Trust Template' drawer revealed parts of trust templates that one dragged, in order, to a small desk icon. Each icon (labeled a template or not) could be opened, a contextual menu opened, or it could be dragged, all with different effects. To be effective, such a metaphor required the very careful and sometimes custom design of many, many icons that resembled local objects.

Because of the need for international recognition and the great variety of objects, abstract & concrete, icons can represent, their value will only increase in the future (if the GUI is retained). For these reasons, I feel computer icons (their design & use) to be of very high importance. Geologist (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Software

Resolved
Moved from Talk:Icon editor § Software

I haven't seen any other software article that has a list like this at the bottom. It's impossible to list all softwares and silly to list only some. Since you want to redirect this page anyway, why do you want to preserve this section? Some guy (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia supports lists with notability, like this one. There's plenty of individual list articles of software out there, just this list doesn't justify it's own article, so it's appended to the end of the relevant article. It's not uncommon practice, just by now many of the lists have detached from their main article into separate articles. All notable entries are accepted, if there's one missing, feel free to add it... --Hm2k (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
How are you defining notable here? Many of those don't have sources. Some guy (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Notability is as per wikipedia's guidelines. Essentially, it must either have an article or a reliable source as a reference, which they do. --Hm2k (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that a download page is not a reference establishing notability. And all the programs with articles have no sources and are tagged for possible non-notability. Some guy (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
They are reviews not just download pages. I have restored them. --Hm2k (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly a download page: [1] . This is not a review at all [2] , at best it's a blurb. One of the other ones is primarily a download page as well. We can't use a single review from a random non-notable download website as an assertion of notability. A four-paragraph editorial review isn't proof of notability. These are not acceptable as sources or proof of notability. Some guy (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I found them using the "news" link from the following:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There's a few others you can choose from, however, these links described the software best and I felt met Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines.
What do you think?
--Hm2k (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
All the "news" that I see here are just inspired by updates on download sites; "books" and "scholar" searches do not return any relevant information at all. —Ippopotamus (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree, I don't see anything that qualifies as a source. Some guy (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I feel the links I've provided are fine and qualify as reliable sources. Is there any guidelines that suggest otherwise. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
How is a download page a reliable source? How are the other pages reliable sources? You should pay attention to the line "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The 'sources' you've used don't fall under that criteria. Some guy (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering both links are found in Google News, it suggests that both sites qualify as a reliable source as they have multiple editors and an editor policy. --Hm2k (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That's absurd. The fact that these software appear in that Google news search does not mean they are significant or notable. Having multiple editors does not equate reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Some guy (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Google News provides results that are more likely to be reliable sources (see WP:GNUM). I accept your removal of "@icon sushi", however I do expect it will return at a later date with better notability, at the moment I simply can't find anything else worthwhile. --Hm2k (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"More likely" does not mean guaranteed. Note the line "Google News reprints large swathes of material which may or may not be reliable". Little blurbs at download sites do not establish notability, even if you found them in Google News, you have to address the value of each site individually. Some guy (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Providing entries are moderated by editors and it's an established site, it should be sufficient for notability, much in the same way that entries found in DMOZ are considered notable. The fact it's a "download page" has nothing to do with it. I have also discovered that winfuture.de links are used in other places on Wikipedia, which mean it is very likely to be a reliable source. I will restore the entry. --Hm2k (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interjecting a comment here... when WP:GNUM says that a Google News search is "more likely" to turn up reliable sorces... it is mearly saying that Google News searchs are more likely to turn up a reliable source than regular Google searchs. It is not saying that Google News hits are likely to be reliable, and it is definitely not saying that any individual hit is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what it says, i've read it. Your comment doesn't add to the discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You've said that "entries found in DMOZ are considered notable" after deleting IconCool and Pixelformer, which do exist in DMOZ. So, where's the logic? —Ippopotamus (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah touché. Although that doesn't help either of us. I simply couldn't find any decent references for them, where as "@Icon Sushi" now has 3. I'm not sure DMOZ alone is enough to make something notable, despite what i said earlier, I can't find any guidelines on this. --Hm2k (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If you don't remember, I was opposing your approach to proving notability of software titles (even though it formally follows the guidelines). If you want to estimate the relative notability of particular software, see, for example, the numbers on Software Informer. However, I still think that the list must either be deleted or restored to near original state. —Ippopotamus (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why you disagree with that, it's helping to improve the article and within the Wikipedia guidelines, how can you be against that? On Wikipedia you can't "restore to original state" as it's always subject to change. You can propose a removal, however I will always lobby against it, as removal of this content does not improve the article. Under what guideline would you propose it be removed? --Hm2k (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can blindly follow the guidelines too.
I find your efforts to determine notability of software titles irrelevant, because:
  1. "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." (WP:Notability);
  2. "A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia." (WP:Notability);
  3. Verifiability and reliability of facts about particular software are provided by the software itself. It's existence is easily verifiable as well.
So, I think we should restore the deleted entries (of course, only those which are icon editors); the list was almost complete before you shrank it. Or, if we don't like a list with a dozen of entries here, it would be better to delete it instead of trying to decide (with guidelines which are not intended for this) which entries are deserving to stay. I'd restore the missing titles —Ippopotamus (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The list will never be "complete" and will only ever contain notable icon editors. There are no "missing titles" as far as I am aware. Feel free to suggest a new entry, so long as it has notability, there's no reason to remove it. --Hm2k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to the list being continually removed under WP:NOT I have moved it to List of icon software. This resolves the original issue, while the issue over the "download pages as references" continues below. --Hm2k (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Download pages as source for notability?

Resolved

The list of "notable" software is arbitrary and uses weak sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Download pages as source for notability.3F. Some guy (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So fix/improve it. --Hm2k (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave a perfectly valid reason in my edit summary. You suggested I fix the problem. Removing the text fixes the problem. Some guy (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't valid, since they do meet WP:SOURCES. By removing content you're not helping improve the article. By "fix it" I am suggesting you improve the content. --Hm2k (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in the sources policy which suggests those sources are valid. Some guy (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Are there no guidelines to validate a reliable source? As far as I am aware these are reliable sources, simply saying they are not, does not mean they are not. --Hm2k (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a circular argument. As far as I am aware they are not reliable sources, and saying that they are does not mean that they are. This is why I took the discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard. Some guy (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we're going round in circles. Outline your issue, be specific, and stick with it. Then perhaps we can resolve this. --Hm2k (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Under wp:silence I will consider this matter resolved unless you clearly outline your issue within 5 days. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have already clearly outlined my issues and they are being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Stop trying to play manipulative games. Some guy (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your issue is whether ALL "download pages" are NOT considered "reliable sources". Since this is no longer related to this article, there is no point discussing it here any further. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I think that is a good general assumption to make, that is not the core issue here. I think that at least most, if not all, of the sources you have used here are unsuitable as sources in the manner in which you have used them. I also think the arbitrary list of software is unencyclopedic, even more so when using bad sources. The appropriate solution is to remove the list entirely. I will ask you again to stop playing word games. Some guy (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am no longer using any sources here. Your opinion of what is or isn't unencyclopedic has no place here, use the guidelines instead. The sources are reliable, as per the guidelines. Removing the list entirely does not help improve Wikipedia and could be considered vandalism. Word games? A ridiculous accusation that I previously ignored, I suggest you use more concise wording to avoid confusion. --Hm2k (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to the part in the policy which you believes supports your assertion that the sources are reliable? --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me, they are reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I have no reason to believe otherwise. --Hm2k (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Download pages do not independently check the claims of the facts, they simply reproduce the feature list as provided by the vendor. Sure, they reliably reproduce this, but the facts cannot be relied on as reproduced. Finally, an opinion piece written is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and in most cases the opinion pieces on these sites are anonymous or by unknown authors or authors with undetermined credentials. This fails insofar as there is no "reliable author" associated with the page. --HighKing (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't disagree with facts. Some download sites DO independently check the claims of the facts and DO clearly have reliable authors. --Hm2k (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of download sites produce reviews by reliable and credible authors or exercise editorial control. Most - the vast majority - don't. Not to split hairs, but you seem to be arguing for the exception, not the rule. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement that there ARE exceptions, I'd go as far as to say many more than you seem to realise. Ignorance doesn't make it policy. --Hm2k (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
References by reliable and credible authors are acceptable - but that isn't what this dispute is about. You have placed references in the article which don't meet these criteria. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS to avoid confrontations on this matter in future. If you simply produce references that meet policy guidelines, there would be no dispute. "In general" arguments will never resolve disputes on individual articles since each article must be evaluated on a case by case basis, and resolved by consensus. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which references are you having issues with? --Hm2k (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The references which are not by reliable and credible authors, etc. Let's continue in one place - the List of icon software page is appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So be it. --Hm2k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposing rename (2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Computer icon → Icon (computing) - Some months back this article was renamed from Icon (computing) to Computer icon here. The problem with this is it is out of line with the rest of the related articles, including: WIMP (computing), Window (computing), Menu (computing), with the exception of Pointing device. I suggest that they are brought in line with each other. What do you think? Support or Oppose. --Hm2k (talk) 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I support the rename. —Ippopotamus (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - makes sense to keep consistency for terms that have "computing" meanings as well as other "normal" meanings. --HighKing (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suggest icon (GUI) instead, since an icon in computing could be Bill Gates. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, he's an idol. Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    re: dictionary.com One who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol: - another word for idol is icon. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    "Icon" as a computing term does not refer to people. —harej (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    The word "Icon" is clearly primarily associated with people, as evidenced by the definitions available in pretty much any dictionary available. There are definitions which apply to computer icons, but their clearly not the primary meaning of the word. Since the WP:COMMONNAME for Icon is obviously not a "computer icon", this move should not occur. The fact that other computing terms using the <Word> ("computing") pattern is irrelevant when the term "Computer icon" is clearly established through the references used in the article as being the common name for "small pictograms displayed by computers". In a word: Oppose.
    — V = I * R (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    The root sense of icon is not a person; it is the "image" of a person, normally in particular media (and, originally, for religious purposes). Since we do want to link to this article from contexts where computer icon would be redundant; we should therefore use icon (computer) - as suggested. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    I Agree that the root sense of icon it's the "image" of a person. I'm not following your line of reasoning when it comes to "Since we do want to link to this article from contexts where computer icon would be redundant", though. You're saying that the title should be changed in order to make links from other pages shorter, or something? I don't see how that's relevant (let alone true) to this page, especially when it's trivial to use [[Computer icon|icon]]. More importantly though, switching from "Computer icon" to simply "Icon" actually changes the meaning slightly. People will refer to active elements within computer GUI's as "computer icons", but they will often not use the same term for inactive (display only) elements that are icons (as in pictograms) which are displayed on a computer screen.
    — V = I * R (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - look at the interwiki list - in most other languages, the article title uses the Icon (whatever) format. Some guy (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with our decision, here?
    — V = I * R (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was thinking about it as a sort of interwiki consensus, but since "everyone else is doing it" doesn't necessarily mean it's better, I'll change my stance to weak support. Some guy (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Computer icon" is common and avoids having to use a parenthesized disambiguator. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Odd naming (Requested move (2010))

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. While I'd prefer Icon (computing) myself, there isn't consensus for that either. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer icon → Icon (GUI) — This isn't an article about icons depicting computers, it's about icons as used in graphical user interfaces. Many articles use parenthized disambiguators, they exist for a reason and should be in the page title. This article places its in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The current title is naturally unambiguous. It's a common way to disambiguate "icon" when the context is unclear. See a couple posts in the 2009 Cfd discussion which resulted in the current name. Even this article's lead used "computer icon" before the article was called that. Results of a Google Books search suggest "computer icon" is in common usage when the context is unclear. The relevant guidelines are WP:PRECISION and WP:TITLE. Examining the naming criteria individually:
    --Pnm (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Computer icon" is itself ambiguious, as it would most naturally refer to an icon depicting a computer. // Good thing the clipboard was invented then. We shouldn't name things based on the ease of typing. The parenthesis cleanly separates the disambiguator from the term itself. There are precedents for the (GUI) disambiguator in Pager (GUI) and Tab (GUI) both of which likewise refer to computer interface terms that are also used in other contexts. Pantergraph (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I think any reader looking for this topic would click Computer icon rather than pass it over because they thought it was about "icons depicting computers." And even if they were to pass it over, the slightest bit of searching would lead them back. If icons depicting computers justified an article, I'd think differently. --Pnm (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Why doesn't icons depicting computers justify an article? There is a history of representation from the original diagrammatic Lisa and Happy Mac icons to Windows' My Computer icon of a generic mid-90s PC, then the OSX & XP/Vista photographic icons when full-color displays became ubiquitous. There's much there for an article, a very interesting one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2011
          • Is there significant coverage in reliable sources? --Pnm (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Will there ever be coverage in reliable sources? If you cannot answer "no" then the current name should be changed to better conform to existing naming practice, which would be to icon (GUI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 January 2011
              • No, I don't think there will ever be significant coverage of that topic. --Pnm (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
                • You can't say no; article needs a disambiguator.
                  • That's not going to be a compelling argument. If and when things change, and we have an article about icons representing computers, then we can revisit whatever decision is made in the present case. We don't preemptively disambiguate against possible future ambiguities, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More discussions on icon authoring software

I see what list of icon software article has been merged into this page. I'd like to bring some attention to the impact of this change and subsequent application of "notability rule" has on the list. Look at it, up to date in contains commercial applications only! Granted, shareware vendors are still trying to get free advertising here (thats why I removed recently add link to icns converter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.244.14 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

proposed merge from History of computer icons

Unless there's a lot more people expect to put into History of computer icons it would seem to fit better as a section here. Peter Flass (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like all the material in the "History" article is already here. I suggest simply deleting that article. Peter Flass (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed hatnote. Peter Flass (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Windows Icons (Metro Style)" ?

I tried to google; "Icons (Metro Style)" and could find no definition, but could find plenty of offers to download them for free. I did download several hundred and found them to be bland and colorless, generally resembling the icon style on a bathroom door or street sign, except generally; with poor visibility. They are hard to get away from. Everybody seems to know what they are but me. I was surprised that Wikipedia does not even mention them.

Other terms I found being pushed on me: 

Orthodox Icons - - legacyicons.com‎

and; 

Windows 8's Metro style that you can use to update older...

this gem by: Download staff on March 07, 2015: 

Windows 8's cool Metro design language takes its name and stylistic  cues from the iconic typography of Swiss public signs that many people appreciate....

This seems worthy of mention at several levels.
CHEERS!

--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4C8E:1B95:346E:240 (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Give the generic definition first?

"this iron-jawed icon of American manhood…"
Since many people today are unfamiliar with the generic usage of "icon," I suggest the opening sentence give the generic definition. This context and concept should also help clarify the computer jargon; "icon." This omission seems to cause problems later on… Before one can define "trout," we must know with certainty that the reader understands what a fish is.


First Known Use: 1572
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/icon
"Current senses date from the mid 19th century onwards."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/icon

Also, the article's claim that;
"Dr. David Canfield Smith first coined the term "icon" in his landmark 1975 PhD thesis "Pygmalion:…" is flat misleading.… As is the whole feel and and implications of that paragraph. (The desktop trashcan is an "icon," no matter what Dr. Smith, or anybody else, also wants to call it. Perhaps what he coined was the idea of replacing words with pictures as user-choices, —not a term.) That paragraph is awkwardly defining the term as if it had no previous generic definition. Again, an opening definition could help clarify these entangled concepts and objectives.

Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4C8E:1B95:346E:240 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

My opinion is that none of the collections of icons all over the web should be added to this article. The point of external links is to provide more information on a topic, and icon collections don't do this. Furthermore, once one gets added, it makes it harder to justify removing others, and the list of external links will quickly grow out of control. Unless an editor can show the collection they are adding is somehow more notable than all the others you can find on Google, or can add to the reader's knowledge of this subject, then it shouldn't be added. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I added a link to Open Directory Project's page on icons for readers who are looking for icon collections. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the ex-editor of that directory back in the Dmoz last years.

I'm afraid the selection is far from being representative there. Although I've added the modern stuff, they didn't let me remove anything outdated. Unless the server is down, it stays forever, they said.

I'd suggest handling the problem on our own. Are you open enough creating the page comparing the modern icon libraries? Ivanpalermo (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft's Guidelines on Icons

The page features Microsoft's guidelines for Windows XP. However, Windows Vista Icon Development Guidelines were released few months ago. The temporary status of this document should not prevent it from posting. First, it's up to date and used by icon designers worldwide to create thousands of icons. Second, the link should remain the same after Microsoft ends up editing the article. Visualpharm 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows 10 is released, and fluid design is coming (without the docs yet though) Ivanpalermo (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Web icons?

This article is focused almost exclusively on desktop computer icons, but icons play a huge role in web interfaces too. Icon is not something related to computing, it's more related to interface design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toinewx (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Icon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Icon_(computing)/Archive_1&oldid=1156090764"