Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Flagcruft

Interesting discussion here; I would welcome some input from informed editors. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Flags for twinning / sister cities involving the United Kingdom

I propose that for twinning cities involving cities within the United Kingdom we use the relevant national flag rather than the union flag.

Nationalist Vs unionist politics aside, There are a number of reasons I think this would make sense.

1. Decisions about a twinning is made at a local level (here with funding from the EU & Welsh assembly) without input from the UK government.

2. There are twinning between towns within different countries within the UK (for example Newmarket). Having a union flag rather than the national flag would not make sense to me!

3. It looks confusion when a city has multiple twinned cities from a combination of countries within the UK (i.e. Annapolis who is twinned to a city in Wales and another in Scotland) since to the causal observer it'll appear as if the 2 are the same country.

It would be good to get a consensus and an agreement for all articles (since currently some have national flags, others union).

If people have an opinion or any objections about this - please let me know!

My opinion is that
conveys the same information as
And as such are WP:ICONDECORATION. Only having the name means we don't have to deal with the complex flag issues above Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I will not bother entering into the 'should we have any flags at all?' debate (needless to say, we do, and it would be an almighty fuss to remove them all), but I have made this reply to the the first poster in this discussion on another thread (which I think more or less concludes the issue):
":: The guidelines on the use of flags is in MOS:FLAGS and is perfectly reasonable in this situation, to wit: "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance" and "In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity". I fail to see your argument regarding the UK Parliament: of course town twinning is not a matter for central government, but nor is it a matter for the devolved Welsh or Scottish bodies. As for references to the Union flag, the Union flag is a national flag, of the United Kingdom. This is consensus across such sections, and is what is most widely used in Wikipedia. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"
In addition to that - the reasons for the policy are expanded on within the page itself and do not need quoted at length here - I note another matter is raised by the editor above - that of there being intra-UK town twinning. Britain is not the only country in which town twinning takes place within internal boundaries (as one can see at the town twinning page's first image; however to apply a rule about 'smallest unit twinned in that country' would result in a ridiculous flag situation. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Gnevin - Flags are clearly a devisive issue and without them we can avoid a whole minefield. Given the example of Folkestone - it can be easily stated that it is within both England and United Kingdom... but, unless we put both the national flag and the union flag, it's clearly going to be a cause of constant battles between nationalists and unionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

icons in templates

a recent interpretation of WP:MOSICON has created some ripples as many icons from templates have been removed by Gnevin according to his/her interpretation of the guideline. In Category:Film_country_list_templates this resulted some reverting by User talk:Dr. Blofeld.
It is my understanding as well, nothing in the guideline suggest against the use of icons in templates in general. So what is going on with this? The guideline is clearly about distracting in-text icons in article body (example),(example) and that makes sense. Rejecting the use of icons in templates in general like for example template:Americanfilmlist or template:CinemaoftheUS or template:United States topics, template:Germanyfilmlist etc. etc. just doesn't make sense to me and sounds completely unreasonable. Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain why if that is the case. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unreasonable. The whole campaign to remove icons started with good intentions but now has evolved to a case of mob rule overreaching to remove anything that is neither photographs or information graphics. They claim to be editing and applying their guide with fairness and good faith, but their reckless boldness in editing and belittling tone has shown their disdain for anything that appears to have a decorative effect regardless of any visual communication or visual learning value that may be included. The wording of "Help the reader rather than decorate" implies that the two functions are mutually exclusive. They are basically enforcing personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Termer explain Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox should only be done if the icon has been used previously in the table with an explanation of its purpose. or As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes. and Icons are often overused. When added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant, as in this sportsperson's infobox this MOS always covered infoboxes
Dr. Blofeld I think you will find most of my removals have not been reverted and those that have most have had the icons remove on further discussion Gnevin (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
RE:Gnevin Nothing in the quotations you provided justifies the removal of icons from templates that you have done. And I agree with Oicumayberight. Therefore Gnevin, please revert any remaining excessively removed template icons in Wikipedia that are done by you: [1]. And most important, please do not attempt further to re-remove by edit warring like [2],[3] Such icons are not used for "decoration" but are a form of visual communication! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The quotes mention infoboxes several times as does this talk page. And I will not be reverting anything. Gnevin (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes have nothing to do with the discussion here, even though icons are used in infoboxes as well as templates. As most of your edits have been reverted anyway by now, I guess there would be no reason for you to clean up the destruction you've left behind this time.--Termer (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of my edits have not been reverted . I don't know where you are pulling this from! And the infoboxes are mentioned in the text of the MOS 3 times and thus proves the MOS extends to them . Templates are on a par with infoboxes. Face facts Infoboxes and templates are covered by this MOS and always have been Gnevin (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Termer, Oicumayberight and Dr. Blofeld. Unfortunately, Gnevin appears to be waging a personal battle against the use of flagicons in any context, based largely on modifications to WP:MOSICON which he appears to have arbitrarily added to the MOS himself without process of consensus. Since the design and format of infoboxes and templates usually falls within a certain Wikiproject, could not the decision on whether or not to use in infoboxes and templates be left to individual Wikiprojects, and not as a blanket MOS? --MChew (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the move from MOSFLAG to MOSICON there has been 11 changes to the MOS. [4]
  • 5 typos corrected
  • 1 duplicate section removed (missed during the move from flags to icon)
  • 2 incorrect words replaced
  • 1 short cut added
  • 1 example changed
  • 1 clarification which is disputed. So how have I greatly modified the MOS from the agreed version after the move to MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A double standard

This latest attempt by Gnevin to make exceptions on how wikipedia styles should be applied is a double standard. The statement clearly says "overuse, misuse and abuse." Overuse, misuse and abuse should not be tolerated anywhere on wikipedia. It just goes to show how controversial this whole guide and application is. I think we should have a discussion before making exceptions. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes and templates are part of the encyclopaedia , portals, stub etc are part of the project . The MOS only applies to the encyclopaedia and not the project. No double standards at all , this has been discussed informally here and at the MOS in general Gnevin (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Stub#New stub templates, icons are actually discouraged, far from being an exception meaning acceptable for "overuse, misuse and abuse." It appears that you are being quick to edit without buy-in again. Show specifically where exceptions have been discussed for portals an project templates. Please refrain from reverting when there is a dispute over your edits to show that you are not attempting to WP:OWN this guide based on your own personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Project templates are not part of the encyclopedia thus the MOS doesn't apply Gnevin (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to define scope

  1. Do you agree that this mos applies to the wiki main space.  ?
  2. Do you agree that this mos does not apply to non main space e.g user pages, discussion pages ?
  3. Do you agree that the main space of wiki is the encyclopaedic content?
  4. Do you agree that some templates which convey encyclopaedic content are part of the main space?
  5. Do you agree that some templates which convey project information are not part of the main space? Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I really feel that if we sort this out a lot of the issue will be resolved. Can user offer opinions on the above. Gnevin (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above with the exception that templates which convey project information are part of the main space if they are seen in the main space. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So your saying stub templates are part of the main space ? Do you consider everything on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/???? is part of the mainspace? Gnevin (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO stub templates are part of the main space and so is the main page. Any page that a user can access without going into project pages, guides, user pages, or talk pages is main space. This doesn't mean that I think icons should be removed on them in the rugged fashion that you applied to some articles. I only brought this point up as an example of the double standard showing just how problematic and hypocritical the arguments made to remove generic icons were. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well i very much disagree that non-encyclopaedic content is part of the main space . how can it be ? Gnevin (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the official definition of "main space?" Oicumayberight (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK according to people i talked to mainspace is just articles . Which make the above entirely incorrect. However Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) would suggest that the MOS does in fact cover stuff outside the mainspace Gnevin (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

The way the guideline gets interpreted and edited according to the ideas of a single editor Gnevin needs to come to an end now. I'm attaching {{disputedtag}} note to this until things get sorted out and everything returns to pr. WP:CONSENSUS.--Termer (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Gnevin is too involved in this project. He should probably take a break from it, if not move on to something else altogether. Lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. And this isn't even a policy, but is being treated like one. The lack of civility in applying this guide has proven viral as other users have found it easy to join Gnevin in the all-to-easy task of demolishing other editors contributions. It's not just about flags either. It's been used against generic icons (basically illustrations) with little or no regard for their visual communication or visual learning value. Unless it's an obvious information graphic, it can be treated like it only serves to decorate with rugged interpretation. This guide can easily be abused, gets into gray areas of personal taste, and lacks input from users from the art-related projects, who are better qualified to say what is overuse, misuse and abuse of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Oicumayberight we've discussed the so called visual communication or visual learning value above . I will no discuss this again here. The guideline has been edited by multiple users and it's not just my interpretation Gnevin (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You didn't discuss it. You merely dismissed it as if there's no potential and as if you have the final authority, with a belittling tone. This isn't just about articles you've edited. It's about your involvement in the guide, your lack of consensus when adding to the guide, the way you've applied the guide, and the way you or someone else may apply the guide in the future. Visual communication and visual learning aren't even mentioned in the guide, which shows lack of consideration by you especially being the most active editor of the guide even after the potential for visual communication and visual learning was brought to your attention. Come to think of it, graphic design isn't even mentioned in the guide either; while the whole point of the style guides are graphic design issues as much as any other. You simply don't care, and you've shown it in your discussions and uncivil tone while edit warring articles based on this guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It was discussed in several places by several users. I didn't write this MOSICON the community did so i don't why i am being accused of lack or consideration . I've never been uncivil,care to point out where i have been? I've always made it very clear the guide is not mandatory and have only reverted when other users have supported my postion or the person re adding the flags give no indication too why they have. Going on past experences you will want to talk about this till the cows come home so I am making it clear. This is my last reply about visual communication or visual learning Gnevin (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just this sentence alone is an example of rudeness, judgmental tone in edit summaries, belittling contributors and feigned incomprehension. Your quickness to revert without discussion and building consensus (what this section is about) is an example of a lack of care when applying policies, edit warring, and (particularly in my case) harassment and taunting, when there is obviously no harm with me making it clearer. You've reverted every contribution I've made to this guide without discussion or consensus as if you WP:own it. The consensus that you have built on some of your reverts was only after your edit warring and uncivil rudeness. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak to his intent in that comment, but his statement is true: a) icons are generally useless without supporting text, and therefore are superfluous; b) they are in many places hokey picture-book embellishments to what are supposed to be serious articles. —Centrx→talk • 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I admit I was a bit rash in reverting your change to the nut shell sorry but you will notice I made a later edit to meet you half way.Gnevin (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This guideline was the product of discussions between many editors. What parts have been wrongly added or perverted by Gnevin? —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the wording in the guide and the lack of consideration for exceptions (not the double standard exceptions mentioned above) that could use improvement and professional input. In regard to Gnevin, it's not so much his edits, but his lack of flexibility and uncivil tone with applying this guide. He is using the guide as a weapon for destruction in his own edit wars, and is using the WP:BOLD an excuse to be uncivil in the process. The way he is allowed to go on with his rigid application just goes to show how much work the guide needs in wording and making exceptions for what is overuse, misuse and abuse of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Then suggest some changes or do as I prefer Wikipedia:BRD Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Termer what part of this MOS do you dispute to or is it the whole thing? Gnevin (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole guideline has entered the territory of WP:CREEP in my opinion. And I suggest {{demote}} WP:ICONDECORATION pr 'instruction creep' and based on the fact that icons rarely if ever get used for "decoration". Icons are a form of visual communication, not "decoration". Decorations are used for Christmas trees, icons are pictograms that have a meaning and therefore none of this in "ICONDECORATION" makes any sense as far as I'm concerned.--Termer (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I second demote it. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No, images are often erroneously used solely for decoration; for example: flags in infoboxes where the country name is already stated. —Centrx→talk • 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Those can be handled on a case-by-case basis until the problems with this guide are resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This guide describes how to handle such cases, and forms a standard as the considered opinion of many editors in collaboration. The parent proposed demoting the entire guideline as irrelevant, when the superfluous and often downright erroneous usage of images is a common problem. If there is a problem with the usage of the term "icon", or objectionable additions by a single editor, the solution is not the demote the entire guideline. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The problems are with the lack of flexibility in the wording and lack of exceptions or examples of how to use icons correctly. It's simply too negative. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The exceptional examples are wars, in which the belligerents explicitly fight under the flag and in which a multiplicity of battles makes abbreviation by the use of flags convenient; and similarly for sporting competitions. What other examples of correct icon usage would be appropriate? —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Use of generic icons as illustrations. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The use of images qua images to illustrate the very subject of an article does not seem to be implicated by this guideline, but by all means add it as an exception. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't implicated, but the guideline was misapplied by Gnevin in multiple cases to remove icons from article as if it was clear in this matter. He also reverted my attempts to make it clearer. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where have i misapplied this guideline? Ignoring the disputed film templates which is clearly a unresolved issue albeit I gave plenty of notice of my intention to make the removals Gnevin (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You've used the guide as an excuse to remove generic icons used as illustrations (not flags) because you considered them "childish" (a matter of personal taste, not policy) and that they were meaningless without text, even though text was used with them in context of the article. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Not this again ! . So a RFC where every user disagreed with isn't enough to prove the images are not needed. It's some how my fault and the MOS should die because your icons where removed . While I am aware con can change ,it has not on this issues and your Beating a dead horse is muddying the waters here Gnevin (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not about the RFC. This is about this style guide. And that article that had the RFC was not your only example of misusing the guide to remove icons based on personal taste. All the RFC proved is that the people with your same level of taste and lack of visual literacy out-numbered me on that particular article talk page about the use of icons in that particular article. That RFC was not about your conduct in using this guide. So don't try to change the subject. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What other examples ? Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Another example of misuse and enforcing personal taste. You even ignored a compromise made by another user. And this is just my encounters with you. I don't have time, to search your edit history, but there is probably more in it. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>A slight history of this MoS, as far as I have known it: The page started out as WP:FLAGICON and at first only applied to flagicons being used, and then was moved to this page on September 5, 2008 (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)/Archive 4#Move page to include similar material for discussion.)

I feel this page avoids the instructional creep guidelines "1. There is a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem) 2. The proposed instructions truly solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures) 3. The instructions have little or no undesirable side effects (such as false positives, overcomplexity, or unnecessary prohibitions)" This page would not have gotten to where it was if there was not an actual problem with flagicons/icons and the instructions solve these problems with no side effects.

As for consensus, for changes on Manual of Style pages, consensus should be reached before making edits to the page. If one is bold and then is reverted, the person being bold should then reach consensus instead of edit warring. Aspects (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Who has been talking about demoting the entire guideline? {{demote}} is about WP:ICONDECORATION only. And the reason is simple, the word "icondecoration" and the content in it dosn't make any sense. The bottom line: an Icon is not a decoration and decoration is not an icon. The (example) doesn't even deal with icons but miniature flag images taken down to 30px. Other than that, if Wikipedia needs to have a guideline telling you it's not such a good idea to use little flags in the middle of text like the (example), sure why not. --Termer (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That section is an essential part of the guideline and tries to generalize principles against decoration for all images; it would still be retained if the verbiage were changed from "icon" to "image". An icon is a representation, which, when superfluous or redundant, is merely decorative. There is nothing inherent in an "icon" that prevents it from being a decoration, embellishment, adornment, or ornamentation. —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The message of the {{demote}} tag is obviously meant for a whole guideline. If you just think a part of the guideline is disputed, the current disputed tag you added there is enough. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that an icon may decorate is not a problem in an of itself. It can communicate and decorate. Just the wording "help the reader rather than decorate" falsely implies mutual exclusivity. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It implies no such thing Gnevin (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
More feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" I see. The words "rather than" implies that decoration cannot help the reader Oicumayberight (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously i am getting pretty tired of you beating me with the WP:Civil stick when I have been nothing but civil in all my dealings with you . In fact if you continue I will be forced you consider it an uncivil act by you. Decoration is surplus to requirements by the very definition of the word[citation needed] . If it wasn't it wouldn't be called decoration .Gnevin (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on [[WP:ICONDECORATION]

  1. "Icons are commonly misused as decoration" - Disagree -an Icon is not a decoration and decoration is not an icon.
  2. "Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information" - Disagree. Flags often provide additional information about historic periods of the country etc.
  3. "and is often simply distracting (example). Agree, the example given is over the top. But it's an example of poor taste , nothing else.
  4. "Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes"- misleading statement!

--Termer (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1:Nothing wrong with that statement. It depends on the context, but many icons are/were just used for decoration. 2: No, they really don't. Unless you can see an easy difference between and 3. We agree here. 4: nothing wrong with it. Garion96 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As for #2, there is visual identity recognition in some flags that are just as effective, if not more effective than words. I'll bet more people in the world can recognize the identity of the U.S. flag by image than can read the words "United States." I'll bet more English-speaking people can recognize the flag faster than they can read the words United States." Most of our brain is devoted towards processing images. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Like and ? Plus, you did noticed the difference in the two American flags I put up there right? It might be good to read the archives of this manual of style to see exactly why it was created. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Presented at 20 pixels wide, you can't see the stars. There is no difference until you blow it up. That problem is not with the icon. That problem is with the link. If the image weren't hyperlinked, then there wouldn't be a problem. At 20 pixels, it doesn't disprove Termer's point. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It provides no historical information at that resolution, so it does disprove his point. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Termer never mentioned that that particular flag had to be displayed at 20 pixels. Unless you are talking about the same exact example asTermer is talking about (same flag, same size) then it doesn't disprove his point. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This quideline states that "icon" stands for "small images", Termer quoted that sentence from this quideline. Therefore the 20px example disproves his point quite well. Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This assumes two things: 1) that there are no flags that are recognizable at 20px; and 2) that Termer made that assumption of 20 pixels or less when he made that point. So are you saying that images greater than 20 pixels are not icons? Should this be mentioned in the guide? And why haven't you answered the question on your talk page? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
1:Ah, so you want different standards for different flags? That would confusing and really unwarranted. 2: The guideline already states that "icons" relate to "small images". What more do you want? Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Small is relative. You are small compared to a blue whale, but big compared to an ant. It just goes to show how vague an problematic this guide can be. If a range of pixel sizes needs to be spelled out, then so be it. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be too wikilaywerish. Most people really know what "small" means. Especially considering the examples given in this guideline. Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If the guide can't be clearer in this matter, than it should be demoted or removed. This is especially problematic when not talking about flags as was predicted in this discussion. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. I don't think many editors have a problem with it. As I said, that would be too wikilawyerish. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can't make a guide that can stand up to scrutiny, then it probably doesn't need to be a guide. If it's so clear, explain this concession before he realized what he was doing and removed it, against the rules. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What rules, I can remove my own contribs to a talk page and I am entitled to change my opinion which I did so when I seen Garion96 reply. Gnevin (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not exactly a rule, but it is discourage. Especially to hide a concession.Oicumayberight (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a rule either. An edit of your own, which was only there for 3 minutes and to which no one responed yet, you really can remove. You said you are against instruction creep (you mentioned wp:creep quite a few times) but this is a great example of instruction creep. Garion96 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section

1. As stated above, there is nothing inherent in an "icon" which prevents it from being used as a decoration. Any image can be used as a decoration or ornamentation, and this guideline specifically refers to small images placed iconically near text. Regardless, this is a minor matter: changing the guideline to your satisfaction would require only a replacement of "icon" with "image".
2. Even assuming a tiny icon helped provide information, providing random information about a country's history does not belong in an article on an actor who happens to have been born in a certain country.
4. A bare assertion of "misleading statement" is not constructive and may as well have been omitted entirely. —Centrx→talk • 22:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Icon in the context of this MOS is a short hand for several types of images . As the MOS states For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated. Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though I can see cases where this guide can be use too rigidly to remove some flag icons, my concern isn't so much with flags. It's with the creep to use this guide to remove generic icons, which strays into gray areas about personal taste and the lack of visual literacy in removing any illustrations on wikipedia. Either this needs to go back to a guide just about flags, or it needs to be improve before making it a part of the MOS.Oicumayberight (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Then suggest some changes or do you wish you just talk about the vague concept of what you don't like. Gnevin (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this more feigned incomprehension, calling my discussions vague? If you don't understand it, consider your own comprehension skills. I made changes that you were quick to revert. You've also ignored most of my points that you couldn't dispute on this matter. And I don't necessarily have to know the solution in order to recognize where there is a problem. I've been reluctant to make more changes based on your unwelcoming response to the few that I've made. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well make your suggestions here ,I can't revert anything here .This circular talking is going no where Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For starters, the guide should either exclude the use of generic icons or show better examples of proper use and misuse of generic icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean generic icons? Example pleaseGnevin (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Any icon that is not mainly associated with any individual, group, organization, or nation. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What would those be used for? If you are referring only to the icons used in Wikipedia policy or talk-page templates, that would seem to be an appropriate exception, but such icons may not be "generic". —Centrx→talk • 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Generic icons are used to illustrate concepts, activities and as visual learning associations. Just like the icons used in maintenance templates. If they work in maintenance templates, there's no reason they can't work in articles. What makes them generic (by definition) is that there is no main group or organization branding associated with them. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you link me to an example or do you mean like Image:Ambox_globe_content.svg, if so then these should not be used as part of the main space as per WP:ICONDECORATION. It is my contention that the CON here is that this MOS and MOS's in general doesn't not apply outside the main space and so maintenance templates are not covered by this MOS or for that matter any other MOS Gnevin (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
You've already expressed your opinion in this matter. But you've given no reason other than personal taste why they can't be used, especially supporting captions and text. This move to stretch the guide to include them hasn't even stood the test of time. It was done in haste by like minded users who even anticipated the problems, but when ahead with the WP:CREEP anyway just months ago. The move didn't solicit any professional opinions on the matter. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If such an image is an illustration of the subject of an article, then it is an image being properly used as an image, not an icon and not under the purview of this guideline. If an iconic image is used in a navigation template or a stub template, it is not within the contents of an article and may generally be appropriate. If the purpose is to use some sort of sign language alongside concepts in an article, that is not appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do not see how such generic images would be used. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Read the example in [5]. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So it is obvious by now that there is no consensus on the guideline and the way it gets interpreted at all. I'd suggest moving on and finding something that everybody can agree on, to avoid dismissing the whole thing due to lack of consensus and tagging it as {{failed}} guideline. I personally have no objections to MOS:FLAG and WP:FLAGBIO, everything seems to make sense over there. The thing is complete opposite with almost everything under Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Generally. That part it seems needs to be rewritten according to whatever consensus can be achieved on the question. --Termer (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Two people objecting is not enough reason, it is not that obvious. As you should very well know from the discussion regarding IMDB in the infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully we haven't started yet another straw poll yet. But I agree with Garion96 and with all the others defending this guideline. This guideline has a well established track record and those seeking to dispute will need to show more widespread support. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No such well-respected track record using this guide to remove generic icons exist. Instead we have a record of one user misapplying the guide since it was expanded to include all icons only 4 months ago. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If I so misapplied this guideline when why did every user (bar you and maybe one other) agree with my remove Gnevin (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The ends didn't justify the means. We are talking about your using the guide as a reason to remove. The goal of the guide was not aligned with your reason or the various differing (some even conflicting) reasons to remove. See my post below regarding decoration. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No the CON justified the means Gnevin (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So you just conceded that the guide didn't apply in that case. Which makes my point about the misuse of this guide and why the guide is problematic.Oicumayberight (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No I didn't Gnevin (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • the recent attempt basically to remove all "flag-icons" from Wikipedia by Gnevin is based on no "well established track record" of this guideline. It only happened about a week or 2 ago. That's what brought me here and so far I read at least 3 other editors above who have agreed with me. So lets underline it, nobody has ever questioned the "well established track record" of this guideline, only the very recent interpretations of it by Gnevin that has led to excessive removal of "flag-icons" all over Wikipedia. In case there is WP:consensus that NO Flagicons should be ever used in Wikipedia article space, including infoboxes, templates etc. that would be fine when this has been confirmed. In cae there are going to be tens of voices saying so against the current 4 lets say.. But to suggest that such an idea "No icons in article space at all" is based on the "well established track record" of this guideline simply isn't true.--Termer (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. just a note that WP:ICONDECORATION is in conflict with current Category:Flag templates used in Wikipedia. You can't make a guideline or interpret it so that it's an opposite of the way the Wikiedia flag templates have been used for ages. Such a guideline doesn't speak about WP:CONSENSUS but rather that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.--Termer (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there diffs that show disputed edits? The only article diff I see in the preceding discussion is this, in which I consider Gnevin's removal quite appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#icons_in_templates if you have missed what this has been all about. That's fine if you agree with Gnevin's removals. There are 4 editors who don't. Please note that WP:consensus is not about going one way or other but finding common ground.--Termer (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't miss all of what this has been about, I just didn't realize that this thread spanned so many top-level sections. Of the film templates, AFAIC, the icons do seem mostly decorative. At one level, I don't really care that much about those particular templates. But once such decorative touches are accepted in some places, I suspect it would not be long before there were a visual cacaphony on various articles and templates. older ≠ wiser 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Since when did decorative become a dirty word? Even if something was "exclusively" decorative, that's still not a problem. Words, like "confusing," "distracting," "inaccurate," are the kinds of words we should be using to identify problems on wikipedia. But "decorative" in and of itself is not a problem. Your house has decoration in it. Does that make it any less livable. If a doctor is good-looking, would that make him or her any less qualified to do their job. I think the word decorative should be replaced with "distracting" throughout the guide, because that's really what you are arguing against, distractions.
But we still have to be careful when applying the guide to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water. Lack of care when applying policies is uncivil. I'm sure if I started working on my car, I would find parts that I would have know idea what they are for. And I'm sure if I asked my neighbors, very few of them will know what those parts or for either. Does that mean that the parts are useless? No. It just means I haven't found anyone qualified to say what those parts are for. So if after consulting with my neighbors, I removed those "useless" parts because the majority of them outnumber the one certified technician who is telling me that I need those parts, then that wouldn't be beneficial to me.
This guide does have problems that Termer and I have done a good job of identifying. They are mainly the WP:CREEP, the wording, and the lack of sensitivity to visual communication, visual learning and graphic design principles from qualified participants. Gnevin is not the main problem with this guide, but instead the main example of how this guide can be easily misused and power through consensus can easily be abused. Some of the graphics he removed may have even been problematic, but not enough to remove. Improved, replaced, but definitely not removed. In my professional opinion, based on Gnevin speech and behavior, not only was he not qualified to say what was the problem with the graphics he removed, but he removed them for the wrong reasons, personal taste. If we made a guide that said that the color orange should not be used on wikipedia, I'm sure we would find more people that didn't like orange, than did. So the use of the color orange would be banned on wikipedia, based on majority rule and personal taste. It wouldn't mean that orange is problematic. It would only mean that fewer people prefer orange.
If this trend continues, you are not going to rid wikipedia of decorations, you will just rid wikipedia of qualified participants. This is the whole reason why the co-founder of wikipedia started the Citizendium. There is not a single image on wikipedia that will appeal to everyone's personal taste. So take it from a qualified participant. This guide has problems that won't get fixed simply by consensus in personal taste or a majority of like-minded less-qualified participants. I may not have all the answers, but I know a professional communication design problem when I see it. When your canary in a coal mine dies, don't just dismiss it as a weak canary. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Case for demotion

The RfC question is [sic]: "a recent removal of all icons from a number of Wikipedia articles has raised a question does the guideline justify this?" I think we would need to know what icons they were. But I don't see how (as has been asserted in edit summaries) the existence of this RfC has anything to do with a dispute over the guideline status of this page, or even any proposal to change the page. Can this RfC maybe be speedy closed as incomprehensible and a better worded and more pertinent question be formulated?--Kotniski (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The question is relevant. The guideline was used as a reason for removing icons in those edit summaries and talk pages. That misuse of the guide shows how the guide is vague and problematic, and how recent changes are an example of WP:CREEP. The user who did the removal is also an editor of this guide, which shows the reason for WP:CREEP and a lack of neutrality in the new language. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The entirety of recent discussions on this page concerning this issue have been mostly incomprehensible. It appears to consist mainly of petty (and often uncivil) bickering. If there is any substantive discussion of issues apart from the personalities involved, it is not readily apparent to casual onlookers. In order for an RFC to be productive it needs to be framed such that those not steeped in the petty back-and-forth fragmentary argumentation can readily understand what the issues are. older ≠ wiser 11:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For those who have trouble following what is being called "petty bickering", it's this simple: this expansion of the guide is considered WP:CREEP by a few of the users in this discussion and there's evidence that the guide is being misused as a badge of authority to justify removing icons instead of a guide in making the determination. Most of the discussion are examples of how problematic the guide is. It has been suggested that the guide should be restored to it's state before the expansion. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide an example of what we're talking about here? Where have icons been removed in mass that is problematic? Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not about problematic removals as much as it's about a problematic guide. The examples are all throughout this talk page and archived discussions. The examples of WP:CREEP are highlighted in red below. I personally encountered a couple of cases where the guide was misused since the expansion [6][7]. Even though consensus ruled in favor of removal of icons in the Multimedia article, it may have been swayed by the false appearance of authority coming from this guide. In the Design article, the guide was use to override a compromise. In both cases, removal was disputable and reasons were subjective. I haven't seen a case where generic icons were removed since the expansion of the guide that was not met with resistance. Lack of resistance in other flag and logo cases may have been due to other users seeing the guide as policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If this guideline really did sway people in the two cases you cite, then that surely proves its worth as a guideline. Wikipedia's style is not to use that kind of icons (just look at the vast majority of pages), so the guideline is accurate if it implies that such icons should be removed. Have you got any better examples?--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If they had bothered to read the guide, it would have proven that nothing in the guide justified removal. I disagree that it proves it's worth as a guideline. Instead it proves it's misuse as a false badge of authority. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In both of those cases the articles seem to have been greatly improved by removal of the icons. The icons provided no information at all and were simply being used as decoration. If anything, those examples make a great case for leaving the guidelines as they are. Do you have any more compelling examples Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That's subjective. And nothing in the guide made it objective. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Generic icons] .These where removed with no fuss and wiki is the better for it . As were these Gnevin (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't met with praise either. No discussion was opened on either talk page very few if any users had much chance to dispute it. They may have just been intimidated by what appears to be authority in the edit summary. Lack of resistance is not proof that it is useful for removing generic icons. So we have 4 cases, 2 of them met with resistance, 2 with no response as of yet. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
But majority opinion in all the cases seems to be that we're better off without the icons; and Wikipedia in general certainly seems to eschew such decorations. If you think you can convince the community to change its approach to this issue, then give it a try at the appropriate forum, but I don't think you're getting very far by implying that the community is on your side at this moment. Sometimes you just have to accept you're outnumbered and move on.--Kotniski (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not implying that the community is on my side regarding those removal cases. I'm saying that the community doesn't seem to eschew such decoration, as you implied, especially in cases where icons are used for more than decoration. So far everyone who's defended this guide either has a history of editing this guide, using the guide, or both. There's at least four others that I count as disputing the guide on this page alone, not counting archived discussions. And the only new RFC response so far has been in favor of my position that the guide is problematic. We are not disputing the policy known as WP:CON that was used in half of the cases of removing generic icons. If this WP:MOSICON guide were working as well as you claim, consensus wouldn't have been sought in those removal cases. We are disputing the WP:MOSICON guide that was misused in those and many other cases, perhaps as a false badge of authority. WP:CREEP states that new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) WP:CREEP is just an essay, albeit a relatively sensible one, so that shouldn't be used as a badge of authority either. And if a guideline is misused as you say, people should point out to the misuser why he is using it inappropriately. People mis-cite WP:POV all the time, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. So far all the examples that have been produced indicate to me that this guideline has helped (or at least not hindered) in reaching the right decision with minimum wasted discussion. Unless you can find examples where the guideline has done actual harm, there seems to be nothing to be gained by changing it back to some historical version.--Kotniski (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At least WP:CREEP proves the expansion of this guideline to be faulty as a supplement to the real wikipedia policy WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia is not a soapbox with propaganda such as the false dichotomy of "help the reader rather than decorate." This guide, in contrast, has no such backing for it's attempt to outlaw decoration. Unlike the assistance from WP:CREEP in proving problems with this guide, this guide fails to prove the perceived problem of decoration. All it does is attempt to propagate the unsourced meme that decoration is a problem in and of itself. Even if it were true that decoration is a problem in and of itself, it doesn't help to determine what is decoration. The guide instead implies the fallacy that images can be proven as exclusively decorative, as if anyone can prove that icons are meaningless to everyone who has ever seen them. It only shows limited examples of what is distracting, not decorative.
As for harm, it's not that the "guideline has done actual harm". The guideline is merely words. The actual harm was the manner of removals based on the propaganda put forth by this guide. And if there were no harm, we wouldn't be objecting to the manner in which icons were removed. I emphasize "manner" because I'm not disputing the consensus in those cases here. Consensus in removal doesn't prove that there was no harm in the manner in which icons were removed. Consensus doesn't even prove that removal was the best choice as consensus could be just a case of mob rule. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think "help the reader rather than decorate" is pretty good general advice - obviously it is open to interpretation, like nearly all of our policies and guidelines. I don't know what you mean about the "manner" - there isn't much choice about how to remove things, you just have to edit the page and remove them. Since general opinion is that the removal was good, then they can hardly be held up as evidence that there's something wrong with the guideline. The fact that people supported the removal which was justified by the guideline rather indicates that the guideline does indeed have consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You are basically saying that the ends justifies the means. Again I'm not saying that removal was evidence of a faulty guideline. I'm saying the manner in which the guide was used (and wasn't used) is evidence of a faulty guideline. The manner (mishandling) has been discussed all throughout this page. You keep bringing up consensus which only makes the case for why the guide was not needed. Unless you can point to how the words in the expansion to the guide objectively (not subjectively) helped the removal process, there's no proof that the guide is working. Instead the proof that the guide causes harm is numerous objections to the ambiguity of the guide on the current talk page, archives, and others such as the one here [8], and the fact that some removals based on this guide were resisted.
"help the reader rather than decorate" is merely a goal, and one that implies a false dichotomy. Even if you assume that decoration is a problem, it's subjective. Whether or not you agree with the goal says nothing to it's implications. Oicumayberight (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Much of our policy and guidelines are based on not totally objective concepts: reliability of sources, neutrality of point of view and so on. This is a goal which can be interpreted appropriately in each particular case, but it seems better to have the goal stated. --Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
But I don't see consensus that "help the reader rather than decorate" is a proper goal to have. If it were "help the reader rather than distract", that would make more sense. "Help the reader rather than decorate" implies a false dichotomy and demonizes the word "decorate." Why do I keep having to repeat that? Oicumayberight (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the demonization or the false dichotomy. It means that here at Wikipedia, we don't use icons for mere decoration unless they help the reader in some way. It doesn't mean that decoration is a bad thing in the world in general (any more than "Wikipedia is not a democracy" means that democracies are bad things in the world in general). Nor does it imply to me that there are two distinct classes of icons, helpful ones and decorative ones.--Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Reconsider the meaning of the words "rather than." Also the word "mere" is not included in the guide. And we have consensus that mere decoration is not a problem in and of itself. Just admit it, "distraction" is the real problem, not "decoration." Oicumayberight (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether decoration is a "problem" or not, why do you feel like Wikipedia needs more decoration? It seems to already be too cluttered with tables and boxes and images of questionable usefulness. Especially if you compare it with an encyclopedia like Britannica. Why would adding lots of icons make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel that wikipedia needs decoration. That's a straw man argument. My position is that because something can decorate, doesn't mean it can't communicate as well. It's a false dichotomy to imply that. The guide is basically saying, "pictures shouldn't be pretty regardless of if they also communicate meaning relevant to the article." Oicumayberight (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify

User:Oicumayberight will you make up your mind and clearly state your issues with this MOS . One minute your happy with the demote tag in a section , when a correct tag is found you now want to demote the entire guideline . Can you state in bullet points the sections you have issues with and the issue you have with them Gnevin (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was never wavering. It's you who are wavering by deleting your concession from this talk page, proof of the vagueness of the guide. It didn't matter to me if the demote tag was in a section or the whole article, as long as it remained until the dispute was resolved. I may summarize later if I have time. But for now, all my issues are stated above. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as i though you are refusing to list you concerns in a way which is clear and concise. You'd rather attempt to talk this issue to death like you do every discussion while jumping from issue to issue in a highly confusing way too which no user can anwser. Why don't you do everyone here a favour and list your concerns in a clear understandable way Gnevin (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So Gnevin will stop ignoring the fact that I said "if I have time later", Wikihounding me and show some patience, here's a quick summary:
  1. The guide should have never been expanded to include all icons. It was obvious that there was going to be problems by this discussion. Sorry I missed that discussion.
  2. The wording of the guide is harsh. It's WP:NPOV biased toward a heavy-handed approach and could be used as a weapon for those who may be overly inconsiderate, negative, or want to inforce personal taste. It invites incivility.
  3. The wording is missing consideration for visual communication, visual learning and graphic design issues, which are not exclusively decorative.
  4. The guide is missing exceptions and specifics about acceptible use. And I'm not sure if it could make enough exceptions to be fair. There has been careful exclusion of the fact that icons could be made clearer and more meaningful by including text.
I re-titled this subsection, because I was never wavering. The title was just more Ad hominem lack of patients and WP:CIV. I'm not going to get into a WP:EW over reinserting the Template:demote tag. But I do believe that the article should be demoted or returned to being just about flags and logos. It should not include generic icons for reasons stated above.
BTW, for those of you who are being civil in this and are defending the legitimacy of this guide, it's Gnevin's incivility that is making this guide look bad. If you really want to protect this guide, don't let Gnevin poison it by including his personal taste in it. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oicumayberight, I understand you are not happy with this guideline. Please could you explain concisely what you want to happen, then we can see if we agree with you? While consensus can change, one editor with an ill-defined grievance will not be sufficient to overturn this well-established principle. Could you also stop complaining about Gnevin please? If you feel he has been uncivil, you may want to report him, with diffs, in the proper place. This is not the proper place. --John (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who objected to this guide or moved to demote it. Just because the others are silent now, doesn't mean their issues are resolve. I already said what I wanted to happen. Either demote it or return the guide to be exclusively about flags and logos. What part of that is not clear? You and Gnevin are only forcing me to repeat myself at this point. And then I'll probably get accused of being repetitive later. This is not a grievance. It's a problem with the guide. Gnevin is just the example of how the guide can get misused to enforce personal taste. I stated the problems above. It's not that I'm not happy with it, it's that the guide is insufficient WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: John I do not understand what is "this well-established principle" exactly you are talking about? The current discussion was triggered by Gnevin who referred to this guideline in order to justify the removal of all icons from a number of Wikipedia pages. So what are you saying exactly?, that the current guideline justifies the removal of all icons from Wikipedia and that is "this well-established principle"? --Termer (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the well-established principle that we eschew decorative images and only use images which lend encyclopedic understanding to our articles. --John (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Who's to say if an image is decorative?
  2. What if the image does more than decorate?
  3. What if text is added?
  4. Is incomprehension of meaning from one or two users the same as an image having no meaning?
Oicumayberight (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. The community.
  2. The community will decide whether and when to use it.
  3. If text is added, we will have an image with text.
  4. No. Is the dissent of one user the same as a well-established consensus being challenged?
--John (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. The community can't prove that the icons don't help any readers because the community can't prove a negative.
  2. If the community will decide whether and when to use it with surgical precision, than why do we need a hatchet of a guide?
  3. If text is added to make clearer the meaning of the image, then the image does more than decorate and the guide does not apply.
  4. No. But just a few users claiming that there is a well-established consensus, is not a well-established consensus. Also, lack of resistance is not consensus. It's more like a weak consensus of editors, who aren't necessarily the beneficiaries of the articles they edit.
Oicumayberight (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The "community" by John most likely means WP:Consensus? We wouldn't have this discussion if any "decorative image" would be defined so by the "community", meaning WP:Consensus. But that is not what this discussion has been all about. It's about that "decorative image"s have been defined so by a single editor who has referred to this guideline in order to justify an excessive removal of icons. Therefore at minimum the guideline needs to be adjusted so that it would say so like for example laid out by John. any supposedly "decorative image" needs to be looked at case by case, instead of what happened here: an automated bot was used to remove icons from Wikipedia [9] without any previous discussion; and a number of those edits have been reverted by Dr. Blofeld. In case the guideline is going to be adjusted according to John, as long as WP:ICONDECORATION says that any "decorative image" in Wikipedia needs to be identified by community consensus, I think we can move on and put this behind us.--Termer (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No discussion expect the link in every edit summary? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Images Gnevin (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad someone else understands my concerns and can see past the obfuscation in this debate. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How well is this guide working?

I couldn't fine any other policies that either define decorative or discourage decoration. I can't find this "well-established principle" that we eschews decorative images. Is decorative in the eye of the beholders. And why is decoration a problem in and of itself? Oicumayberight (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only way to tell if an image is exclusively decorative is to prove a negative. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have it backward. It falls to those wishing to retain or introduce material to demonstrate consensus is in their favor. Failing that, we don't use it. --John (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm clad to see that finally someone has spelled out the differences of understanding the guideline and prodcedures here. In case this is just not your opinion John, please refer to any policies and/or guidelines that say so. In case you can back it up , me and Oicumayberight would clearly have no case here. and anybody would be free any time to remove any image from Wikipedia pr "decoration" claim. Just that in case this is really so, the guideline here would need to say so instead of leaving room for different interpretations. So hope that we can get it sorted out.--Termer (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What John is talking about is not proof. It's just policy and consensus. The only way to prove if an image is exclusively decorative is to prove a negative
Every time someone mentions consensus, they are talking about a case-by-case basis. The only thing the guide can say in this case regarding decoration is to form a consensus. Otherwise, it's just a difference of opinion over content between two editors, the one who added the image and the one who removed it. The only exception would be if the person who added the image conceded no purpose other than decoration.
No wikipedia policy could prove that an image is exclusively decorative. No vote could prove it either, unless we asked everyone who's ever viewed it. This is principle and logic. Not policy. If someone wants to talk policy, then they can find the policy that either defines decorative or discourages decoration and we'll adhere to it. If we want to talk consensus, then we can ask for a vote on a case-by-case basis. But it is absolutely impossible to prove a negative, which is Gnevins premise for determining if an image is exclusively decorative.
We aren't arguing case-by-case here. We are arguing if the guide is helpful in determining if an image is decorative. Nothing in the guide does. So it isn't being used as a guide, but instead a badge of authority. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of CREEP

There has been much said about how well-established this guide is. The recent changes to the guide have not been well establish, but instead have shown evidence of WP:CREEP. Since I was pressured to sight specific problems noted in this discussion, I'm listing them here. Anyone who feels that some have been taken out of context can read the full discussion in the previous link.

Avoiding instruction creep

For proposed new instructions, instruction creep can be avoided if all of the following hold:

1. There is a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem)

Vagueness and perceived problem:

"There currently isn't a strong enough discouragement for the use of logos as icons." — Andrwsc 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No real problem mentioned here. Discouragement for what reason? A logo is practically synonymous with icon. Wikipedia already has a policy on the use of WP:LOGOs.

"What we're really trying to say on this page (in my opinion), is that the use of tiny captionless images must be limited to instances where it is actually helpful. " — Andrwsc 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who says tiny captionless images don't help? Not help a few, or absolutely everyone who views the article? Can you prove a negative? How would we know without guessing? If it doesn't help some, could it be due to a lack of pictorial literacy on their part. How would you know if help beyond decoration wasn't the intent? Couldn't you address these problems on a case-by-case basis?

"It just so happens that flags are the vast majority of "tiny captionless images" we use on Wikipedia — Andrwsc 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Still no problem if the icons have meaning to some readers. And if they don't understand them, it doesn't mean they are distracting. Some readers may simply ignore images. And it says nothing about generic images that are not logos. If flags are the vast majority, then why did this guide that already covered flags need to be expanded to correct a perceived (rare) minority problem? Couldn't a rare problem be covered on a case-by-case basis? Any other problem would be a perceived problem.

Instruction creep begins when a well-meaning user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this" and adds more requirements. Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort to find, read, learn and actually follow the complex procedures. Page instructions should be pruned regularly. Gratuitous requirements should be removed as soon as they are added. All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise.

Weak buy-in:

"I'm about to move the page, as discussed here and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style." « Diligent Terrier 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Three votes and 2 hours after the discussion started, the page was moved

"Works for me, but I have to say I think this was waaaaay too bold; this is a Wikipedia guideline, and a page move and a repurposing of the guideline should have at least a few weeks of discussion. I like the change myself, so I won't revert it, but I would not be surprised if someone else did." — SMcCandlish 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As Termer mentioned. The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

Anticipated problems:

"That someone would be me , as I've said this makes the page a Jack of all trades, master of none. "- Gnevin (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more vague than that.

A great deal of the advice in it can be genericized to all of these pretty but often (not always) pointless little icons, — SMcCandlish 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the exceptions? Is it possible to list them all? Could someone apply this guide too rigidly?
I think most of the issues where there was consensus or no objection to removal of icons could have been handled on a case-by-case bases. Editors didn't need a guide to tell them that the icons are not working and the guide doesn't same much about why the icons are not working in concise terms. It uses vague terms and makes decoration a crime regardless of whether an icons serves to do more. It doesn't even define icon in concise terms. I doubt that it can. Some of the images that Gnevin removed are bigger than the 100 pixels he started to speculate on and much bigger than the 20 pixels that Garion96 used as an example.
Where is the great deal of advice for icons that are not flags? I only see one paragraph that says nothing about how to identify decoration for images that aren't flags and no advice on how to improve. It only links to a Template with a heavy-handed approach by suggesting removal as the only option.
What are the real issues? If it's readability, that depends on the various sizes and placement of text. You couldn't spell out all the possibilities with a guide. But you could address them on a case-by-case basis without a guide. If recognition is concern, it depends on the individuals who are viewing those images. This guide can't speak for everyone, and especially can't speak for individual interest groups.

2. The proposed instructions truly solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures)

Symbolic gestures such as a badge of authority? Gnevin alone has invoke this guide in his comments to remove icons from over 100 articles, not that he needed a guide to do that. This guide has been used as a hatchet instead of the scalpel that was needed to handle icons on a case-by-case basis. There was even a bot used to remove icons. Treatment doesn't always mean removal.
Break to address Gnevin's counter-points: Oicumayberight (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. How many of this "100" have been reverted? Very few (excluding the film templates which are all the same type)
  2. I gave over 15 days notice of my intention too remove these icons and no one objected Gnevin (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Lack of resistance and reverts are not the same as approval. Maybe they just don't want to edit war with you. The lack of resistance is evidence that the guide may be being used and seen as an intimidating badge of authority, as if it's a policy and not a guide. And how do you know that reverts or similar icons won't return in many of those cases?
  2. Did you give notice on the talk pages of those articles? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

3. The instructions have little or no undesirable side effects (such as false positives, overcomplexity, or unnecessary prohibitions)

We've seen the unnecessary prohibitions with the false dichotomy of "help rather than decorate." It's difficult to imagine how this guide could be fixed without overcomplexity. As for false positives, we can't tell because the guide does little or nothing to help identify real positives in regards to exclusive decoration, not that "real decoration" is a real problem in and of itself.
As for undesirable side effects, there has been complaints, many in this discussion page archive, many by users other than myself. But where's the praise for this guide since the expansion? What if rarely anyone but advocates for this guide identify the icons as a problem?
In most removal cases, they haven't even heard a complaint about the icons in that particular article before they removed them. It's been a solution in search of a problem, a hunt, and target practice on those "bad decorative" icons. Most of the readers of any particular article may be part of a specific interest group. Wouldn't it make sense to find out if they had a problem with the icons before removing them? This guide calls for removal first. That means that most of the future readers of any particular article may never know that the icons ever existed unless they know how to and have time to search previous versions. It's next to impossible that future readers will know that the validity of the icons were ever being question on that page because there's no discussion about icons in the talk pages of those articles. The heavy handed approach by this Template:Icon-issues never gives the real beneficiaries of the free online encyclopedia a chance to say if the icons were or would have been meaningful to them if someone decided to adhere. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Heart of the matter

[added subheading]

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. This last outburst comment from Michael just confirms how futile it is to make a MOS for the use of icons on wikipedia. If icons should never be used and there is no special cases to consider, then there is no need for a manual of style. This instead was an attempt at making a manual of anti-style and a way around developing policy. WP:CREEP points out "deliberate intent to be alternatives to regulations; this is almost always noticed by the other side, and tends to antagonize. It tends to antagonize even when it appears to the instigator that he's acting with proper intent." Considering that the strongest advocates for this guide are editors of this guide and applying the guide in removing icons (i.e. judge, jury and executioner), this guide has been used as a false badge of authority on a witch hunt against "evil decorators" of wikipedia. And even though some removals were challenged and consensus ruled in favor of remove, the guide was an attempt of not having to build consensus on a case-by-case basis, which is really the only way of determining if an image is exclusively decorative. It's all starting to come out now. The cops who used police brutality thought that they were innocent because they beat up someone who was found guilty of a different charge than the one they arrested them for. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How about you don't characterize my discussion as outbursts, and I won't mention your self-important sermons, eh?
Are saying that icons should never be used, therefore this guideline should be deleted as futile? —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 22:37 z
Sorry for the mischaracterization. And no I'm not saying that icons should never be used. But since you said "This 3,500-word treatise could be summarized with don't use icons," I'm saying that if icons should never be used, then there is no need for a guideline. This guideline is just a deliberate intent to be alternatives to regulations. I don't know what everyone here is afraid of. If icons are so bad, then certainly a case could have been made for a policy, not a guideline against icons. Afraid of exposing the double standard with maintenance templates? Afraid of exposing that this is merely a matter of personal taste? Afraid of revealing that the guideline is useless and that icon removal should be handled on a case-by-case basis? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm totally for a policy. But the trick is to get something everyone can agree on. Opinions are so diverse and it's difficult for a such a group to discuss and agree on such design questions.
What if we started with some real examples, and found some which we could agree were good or bad? This may be better than speaking in generalities. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 23:15 z
Good an bad examples of icon use? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless you can come up with any examples of "good" use of icons, then there's no need for a guide, only a policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I take it that you believe there are no good examples then? If that's the consensus, then let's propose “the use of icons should be avoided” as the policy.
If you think there may be a variety of opinions, then let's look at a range of examples, and see if we can identify the range that the majority agrees on. I'll try to come back with a range from specific articles I have been editing. —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 00:15 z
I don't think that there are "no good examples" of icon use. But that's my opinion. The fact that it's my opinion is my point that it is subjective. And if it's subjective, the guide couldn't possibly be objective enough. We could spend for ever looking for a range of good and bad examples. But unless the guide can be helpful in determining both good and bad examples, then it's useless as a guide, it's just a pseudo policy. It's just preaching personal taste and being used as an alternative to policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus for completely deprecating the use of flags, as an example 2008 Summer Olympics medal table contains a very long list of countries that participated in the 2008 Summer Olympics and their medal counts. If you were looking for a specific country in that list, it's easier to look for the flag than to skim the names. This is even more true if you are looking for the medals for a particular country in the individual events, like Wrestling at the 2008 Summer Olympics. So I would classify the use of appropriate icons in a long list of text as a "Good Thing". Conversely, in the case of birth places and death places, the use of flags there is just useless cruft, i.e. having Born: Seattle,  Washington  United States in someone's infobox is just pointless. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Those are good positive examples. One might improve details, but I wouldn't argue against this use of flags.
The Born Seattle example is the kind of thing that the guideline already warns against. Can we all agree that most of the practices that the guide already discourages should be discouraged? —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 00:49 z
The only examples are about flags, which makes the case that the guide should have never been expanded beyond MOS:FLAG. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

← Sorry about only using flags as examples, I was killing time while waiting for my carpool to arrive and flags are the most abused icons out there. Anywho, I would say any "small" image that is used by itself is pointless. As an example of a non-flag icon being used inappropriately would be when a small image of the Nobel Prize medal was placed in the infobox next to the names of all the Nobel laureates. The actual icon has been deleted, so you can't actually see the icon anymore, but here's a link to the old version of Al Gore's article that shows where the icon used to be. The only time I would say the use of icons is acceptable is when the icon is readily identifiable and is used in such a manner that it assists the navigation of long lists of text. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I was speaking of the guide. The guide only shows examples of bad flag usage, and doesn't show any examples of good icon usage, which not only reveals possible bias against graphic design on the part of the guide editors, but also makes the guide an ever expanding list of "do nots" which makes it more of a policy than a guide.
I'm not trying to prove that there are enough examples of good and bad icon use to justify the guide. I don't think you could show enough. I'm trying to prove that it is subjective, and that this guide is only being used as a substitute for policy. Although I'm probably more capable of saying whats wrong with icon usage than most of what has been shown in the unprofessional arguments against icons here, I'm not going to help make a policy that says "no icon usage" because I think it would unreasonably limit wikipedia. The "meaningless decorative" icons could be discussed and removed on a case-by-case basis. You don't need this fake badge to do it. Nonetheless, if there were such a real badge of a policy that said "no icons", it would make the advocates against icons jobs easier and give the advocates for icons a less subjective reason to not use them. But until such a guide is made, this guide should be demoted, as it is obviously WP:CREEP. Even those who have advocated for it have proven the CREEP in their own anticipation prior to the expansion, with the ambiguous and subjective wording after the expansion, and with misuse of the guide when removing icons, despite consensus to remove icons for reasons other than what was made clear by this guide. Even Michael's strict opposition to icons is proof that a guide for icons use is a futile attempt at what he thinks should be a policy against icon use. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the detail to which the guideline goes, if only because there has been so much icon abuse on Wikipedia that a detailed description of what is a "good use" vs. "bad use" is necessary. I also don't believe that the detail in this guideline pushes it into policy territory. Policies tend to not only act as a guide for what is good and what is bad, but also comes with consequences for not following the policy. No one is going to get blocked just because they are using icons inappropriately, but if they decide to edit war, violate WP:3RR, or get POINTy about it, then they can get blocked. Unfortunately the amount of edit warring that has occured over icons (which icons to use and whether they should be used) has necessitated a detailed description of what is acceptable and which isn't. Seriously, have you seen how detailed the other MOS guidelines are? There is no prohibition on long guidelines, they are as long and detailed as they need to be effective. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I also don't see the need to get rid of the guideline (what is demoting it?). I don't think it has bad advice, and I personally think that “help the reader rather than decorate” is a firm basis for the whole policy, at least if it were articulated so that it was clear to everyone.
Like B-head says, what it is lacking is concrete detail about what is and is not permissible or recommended. I think better examples along with their rationale would be a very good start. —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 03:59 z
Demotion was the alternative to deleting a policy or guide, removing it's status, but allowing it to live for improvement. It was removed as an option [10] from the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines while this dispute was in progress. The tag was removed from this article in an edit war. The equivalency would be to move the failed guide to the Wikipedia:Historical archive. Restoring it to being just the MOS:FLAG would also suffice. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's possible to put enough detail to handle most of the cases of icon abuse, then I'm all for it. But this guide doesn't even scratch the surface in terms of possible cases of abuse or proper use with generic icons. As a policy on flags, the scope is narrow enough to make it work. But once it wikicrept into the territory of generic icons (which could be any image at any size including photos), it started to fall apart as a guide and started mimicking a policy. And there wasn't a wide spread problem on this. There was only 4 cases where it was applied to generic icons, 2 met with resistance, 2 with no response. As the WP:CREEP essay predicted, the alternative to policy was noticed. The guide was cited as the reason icons were removed in both of the resisted cases. But the real admitted reason was a personal taste claim that the icons were "childish." There's nothing in the guide that said anything about childishness. In one of the cases it was used to override [11] a compromise[12] between me and another user that said icons were working with a little rearrangement. I let it go because there was no text explaining what the icons were for. In the other case there was text explaining what the icons were for. It worked so well that it was picked up by 16 other translations of the article, showing meaning that transcended language barriers, and are still in use as of this post. But again, icons were removed and the guide was cited as justifying it [13]. Even consensus to remove them never cited objective reasons that should be clearly stated in the guide. I looked at this guide hoping to find some examples of proper use of icons. There was no objective reasons, making it useless as a guide, but instead discouragement of a vague problem for subjective reasons.
I became suspicious because the same editor removing icons was also editing the guide and one of the 3 editors who expanded it in haste. In both icon removal cases, the icons were on the articles for years with no complaint. And it wasn't like the articles weren't getting attention. All it takes is for one editor to not like the icons and remove them to bring out any other mean spirited editors with the same lack of taste for a mob rule consensus. You can see the mean-spirited antagonism in the edit comments and in the talk pages. The WP:CREEP essay warns against antagonistic alternatives to policy. The problem with this guide is that it can be used as a false badge of authority or a bullhorn to incite such a mob rule riot. It's basically "saying that we don't like icons; and if you don't like them remove them." The premise of "help the reader rather than decorate" falsely implies that decoration and communication are mutually exclusive and that one could prove the negative that icons aren't helpful. Contrary to such unfairness, all it takes is one user to say, "yes the icons are helpful" to disprove that, unless you think the user is lying. Even if the majority of users don't comprehend the meaning, it doesn't negate at least one member's comprehension of meaning. And we are talking about users (mostly not editors) that benefit from wikipedia articles here. Most of the people who find no problem with an article (such as a user who finds meaning in icons) will not be looking at the talk page to see that an icon is under dispute. And if the icons have been removed, any future users won't have a chance to be helped by the icons. So the premise that something can be proven as exclusively decorative is flawed. But the flawed premise in the guide doesn't matter to whoever may want to use that flawed premise to justify removing icons they don't like for personal taste reasons. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Small

A issue has been raised over the defination of small, while I don't want to get dragged into Wikipedia:Wikilawyering every word of this MOS. I agree some ballpark figure should be offer . The standard I generally used is less than 100px, i.e the size where its still hard to make out the image

  1. 20px
  2. 40px
  3. 60px
  4. 80px
  5. 100px
  6. 120px

So i would suggest smaller than 100px as being an icon Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Readded because Oicumayberight feels this is a big deal. Please note I no long am over the oppinion aboveGnevin (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have to call this section a red herring. This discussion is only about either the guideline justifies removing all icons from Wikipedia article space including templates, info-boxes etc. like claimed by Gnevin or it doesn't?--Termer (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't please all the people all of the time or it would seem you and Oicumayberight any of the time Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Gnevin says that I think it's a big deal. I really don't. I just mentioned his removal of this from it's original place in talk page as minor evidence of how problematic and ambiguous this guide is already is and could get. Whether he changed his mind or not is irrelevant. I think Gnevin removed it just to keep the appearance of a united front. He could have left it removed and I would have been fine. The link to the history was enough to prove my point. He Re-included it when he accused me of wavering, and I used it as evidence again of his wavering. I agree that Re-adding it only served as a red herring. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party view

I had not seen or read any of this before this morning, came here due the Wikiquette alert. My impressions are:

  • the net effect of the disagreement is the maintenance of a disputed tag on the manual. Editors like me seeking guidance will take one look at that and then just move on.
  • there is intemperate, and escalating dialog on both sides of the issue.
  • I'm not really sure of what the issue is. The instructions for the RFC tag were not followed -- i.e. new section, neutral statement of issue. Getting additional assistance is a good idea, but not being executed well.
  • There seems to be some invoking of qualification/expertise arguments. -- please review WP:EXPERT. What'd I'd suggest to those with expertise in the area of visual design is citing specific references that support your viewpoint. Gerardw (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Gerardw it can't be simpler than that, does the guideline justify removing of all icons from Wikipedia article space including info-boxes, templates etc? In case you can tell that instructions for RFC were not followed and it was not executed well, why not to do it better if you know how and can. Other than that, turning this into a WP:CIV issue is yet another attempt not to address the question in hand: does the guideline justify removing of all icons from Wikipedia article space including info-boxes, templates etc?. And in case you can make this question more neutral than that for RfC purposes, please do. Regarding WP:EXPERT, what has a failed guidline to do with anything here? This is not a discussion about any expert subjects but only how to interpet the guidline, and onca again it's about a general question: Should all icons get removed from Wikipedia article space? In case you do have answers to those questions, your input might be helpful. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this right

Gerardw's response is a third party view about how to handle the RFC and the resolution process, and not much of a comment on the quality of the MOS guide. It didn't come from the RFC to the Art, architecture, literature and media community. I understand if Gerardw doesn't want to get involved. He did what was asked and addressed the civility issue. He probably has is hands full on Wikiquette alerts.

I still don't see this page on the Template:RFCmedia list, probably because we could do a better job following the process. I appreciate Gerardw's advice because I didn't know much about the RFC process. Had I known, I would have sent the RFC of the multimedia article icon issue to the more relevant Art, architecture, literature and media community, instead of allowing another biased user to send it to the less-relevant Maths, science, and technology community, and the result may have been more enlightening. If anyone understands the 4 points stated in this summary but thinks that they could use a little more neutral wording, please advise so we can do this RFC right:

  1. The guide should have never been expanded to include all icons. It was obvious that there was going to be problems by this discussion. Sorry I missed that discussion.
  2. The wording of the guide is harsh. It's WP:NPOV biased toward a heavy-handed approach and could be used as a weapon for those who may be overly inconsiderate, negative, or want to inforce personal taste. It invites incivility. It makes decoration sound like a dirty word.
  3. The wording is missing consideration for visual communication, visual learning and graphic design issues, which are not exclusively decorative.
  4. The guide is missing exceptions and specifics about acceptible use. And I'm not sure if it could make enough exceptions to be fair. There has been careful exclusion of the fact that icons could be made clearer and more meaningful by including text.

Oicumayberight (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In all of your discussions on here, you and Termer seem to be for an all or nothing approach, that either all icons are acceptable or no icons are acceptable. We currently are in a situation in between and that is the way it should be, that some icons are acceptable and some icons are unacceptable.
As to your points, 1) I do not see any obvious problems in that discussion. Please list what problems you considered that were brought up. 2) What words do you consider harsh and what changes would you make to consider them neutral? 3) What wording do you think is missing? 4) There are currently exceptions and specifics about acceptable and unacceptable use. In cases brought up here in the talk page, new exceptions can always be added to the MoS.
I think it hurts your case in that you talk in generalities without specifics. You also spend quite a bit of time attacking another poster in generalities without providing edit differences to show what you are talking about. I would like to see examples of what you find wrong and what you think would be right instead. By not coming up with any suggestions to show that there is a possible compromise, which there surely is, you seem to be saying either the MoS stays exactly as it currently is or there is no MoS on icons. Aspects (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. I'm not for a straw man "all or none" approach. I'm for a "demote this WP:CREEPy guide until problems are fixed" approach.
  2. I'm not just talking about problems that occurred. I'm pointing out potential problems.
  3. My specific examples of how the guide is faulty is how easily Gnevin misuses the guide in cases like the one mentioned in this section above. Search his edit history and you will find other cases.
It would have been much easier for me to fix the wording of this guide myself, but I encountered ownership resistance to much of my modifications. I don't care that Gnevin found consensus of his personal taste reasons in removing icons. I care that he misuses the guide to justify it.
For your four counter-points to my four points, it sounds like you are asking me to repeat myself and quote others while anyone who is interested could just read that section for themselves. At the risk of being accused of being repetitive and long-winded again, I may give more specifics later. I don't have time now, and anyone who doesn't want to wait can just read. For now, I'd say just the fact that we are having this long-winded discussion is proof that the guide is problematic. That fact that I'm essentially being forced to give everyone here a crash course on graphic design principles is also proof that the guide is being mishandled and that the move to expand it was premature. Anyone can drag this out forever asking me to repeat my self and be more specific. That's known on wikipedia as feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb". It's hard for me to assume good faith when nobody even attempts to address my concerns. If someone doesn't understand graphic design principles, then maybe they shouldn't be writing (or worse, WP:OWNing) a style guide to correct graphic design problems.
You're asking me to tell you what's wrong with the guide. Why aren't you asking Gnevin to state what is wrong with some of the icons he deleted with answers that are justified by this guide, not his personal taste? If he can't, then it's proof that he misused the guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This sort of argument is precisely why I (and aparrently several others) are having a very hard time trying to make any sense out of what you are arguing about. Essentially you are saying "Trust me, I'm an expert and I know what I'm talking about." I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more persuasive in presenting a cogent argument for changing this well-established guideline. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Where have I said "Trust me"? That's more Ad Hominem. I've only mention my experience for those who are curious as to why I so urgently oppose this biased and faulty notion being put forth in this guide. You haven't even addressed the points that I've made on principle or logic. If you are not willing to consider the validity of my logical points, then you are just treating me as merely one more opposing vote. That undermines the policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone doesn't understand graphic design principles, then maybe they shouldn't be writing (or worse, WP:OWNing) a style guide to correct graphic design problems. is also Ad Hominem. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Use your experience to persuade other editors or cite appropriate references. Gerardw (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for a source from Gnevin for his statement that "Decoration is surplus to requirements by the very definition of the word." I have yet to see it or anything source that says decoration and helping the reader are mutually exclusive or that decoration can never help. But here's a source to the contrary:
Sometimes decorations can help editorialize about the substance of the graphic. But it's wrong to distort the data measures—the ink locating values of numbers—in order to make an editorial comment or fit a decorative scheme."[1] - Edward Tufte. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.
Oicumayberight (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's obvious by now that this discussion behind the scenes is only about liking vs. disliking icons in Wikipedia article space in general. And since this is never going to change, someone who doesn't want to see any icons in Wikipedia never is going to agree with Oicumayberight. So I'd say we need to move forward and spell out in the guideline how exactly decorative images get identified. Also, currently the difference between "decoration" and "needed illustration" doesn't make much sense to me. Both terms are too subjective and open to interpretations as one pleases. So in case this guideline is so well established, it needs to be rewritten straight to the point, telling you how any of those supposedly decorative images do get identified. Until this essential question is not solved, the guideline malfunctions like a broken traffic-light giving you confusing signals delete-don't delete. And the result of that is a "traffic jam" on this talk page.--Termer (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion An icon can be considered decorative if the removal of said icon does no impede the understanding of the topic such as [14] and [15]. While removal of Icons such as [16] and [17] would impede the users understanding of the topic at hand. Gnevin (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That would be also trying to prove a negative. No way of telling if the icon would have helped every user who reads a topic understand the topic. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
How did removing the French flag imped any users understanding? Gnevin (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It's irrelevant to the guide. You are talking about cases that can be handled on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a guide to tell editors what they already suspect. It seems that you want to use the guide as a badge of authority rather than a guide for determining if an image is decorative or not. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
We are clearly not communicating here, since none of the examples given by Gnevin have anything to do with icons, therefore WP:ICONDECORATION would even not be relevant to those images at all the way I see it. If this discussion wants to make any sense at all, we should first define what is an icon and then what is a "decorative icon". For me an icon is a form of visual communication, something that has a meaning to it on it's own and would work without any additional text attached to it. Any "icon" that has no meaning , that would need to have an attached explanation to it would be a decoration, meaning the image would be decorating whatever any text is currently saying. If we'd talk about images in general for example if an article is about snipers, attaching an image of a target to it would be a decoration. At the same time for example an icon that displays a clapperboard with national colors, for example File:United States film.png tells me that this is about film-making in the US. The image has a meaning to it and therefore it's not a decoration.--Termer (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you now wish to change For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated. also. I can't keep up. If you could list your issues and suggest what you think would improve them it would be helpful. Gnevin (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't know how to make myself more clear: if an icon is a small or big image it's completely irrelevant. What this discussion has been all about, what exactly defines a "decorative icon/image" (big/small) vs. an image/icon providing "additional essential information or needed illustration"? I spelled it out in my previous post the way I understand this difference. In case anybody else sees it any way differently, please do not hesitate to spell it out. So why are you Gnevin talking about a completely different question, I have no idea. Once again I have to repeat myself, the guideline needs to make it clear what is the difference between a "decorative image" vs. "not a decorative images". Until this question is not getting addressed, we're not going to make any progress here.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. This MOS only deals with small images. As per it's first line. Do you wish to contest this?
is not covered by this MOS
is covered by this MOS
  1. Following from 1. Large pictures of Icon (computing) are not covered by this MOS.
  2. Following from 1 and 2 Large images of any kind are not covered by this MOS.
  3. This MOS deals with "decorative icons" vs. "not a decorative icons" not "decorative image" vs. "not a decorative images"
    1. I think your last post was very similar to my suggestion .And i shall repeat it An icon* can be considered decorative if the removal of said icon does no impede the understanding of the topic
    2. *= An icon is defined as any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics Gnevin (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"1. This MOS only deals with small images. As per it's first line. Do you wish to contest this?"

Yes, small is relative until you spell it out in pixel size. Every image is small compared to the largest image on wikipedia.

"3. This MOS deals with "decorative icons" vs. "not a decorative icons" not "decorative image" vs. "not a decorative images"

Yes, decorative is subjective. It's pointless to even mention decorative in the MOS unless you can define it.
Gnevin is assuming (although not admitting that the guide has problems), that this guide can be fixed. The guide may have been working before they expanded it. Now it gets into gray areas that may be ambiguous, calling for exceptions that may be too complex. I took a shot at changing some of the language, but he quickly reverted them [18][19][20]. Perhaps because he knew that anything other than the currently too rigid approach would be too complex. I already stated the changes I like to see. Demote it till problems are fixed, it or return to the guide being exclusively for flags. This cannot be a catch-all badge of authority to enforce personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
1.Knock yourself out
3. I've defined it,why don't you attempt to do so and we will meet some where in the middle
Demoting it is not a solution , nor is returning to MOSICON only . You've yet you suggest changes to what you would consider problematic text as i have done several time in a attempt to compermise with you . Remember this is a guideline and not the Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution we don't care if its a comma or a semicolon just once the concept is put forward Gnevin
RE: Gnevin The only thing that is relevant to this discussion is your: " An icon can be considered decorative if the removal of said icon does no impede the understanding of the topic". I think the sentence is too confusing but a step to the right direction. I'd suggest keeping it simple: "if an icon could be considered decorative and should be listed for removal is determined by WP:Consensus." --Termer (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That is far,far to slow. It would required 100's of discussion for very few number of objections and would make the MOS unworkable. You and Oicumayberight want to define decorative . Lets focus on that Gnevin (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "decorative" needs to be defined. Decorative in of it self is not the problem. "excessive, distracting, confusing, too small to read" are the real problems you are after. If decorative is such a big problem, then how come there's no mention of it in the Wikipedia:Image use policy? Perhaps because it's subjective. Images can be problematic at any size. But they need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Defining icon is vague enough. A decorative icon, is twice as vague. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Modified suggestion An icon can be considered decorative if it's removal would not affect the users understanding of the topic Gnevin (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Modified suggestion 2 An icon can be considered decorative if it's does not convey any additional information about the topic Gnevin (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose all basic principles laid out by Oicumayberight. When asked questions about his basic principles and to provide specific edit differences, examples and changes to the MoS wording, he responded saying he did not have the time to answer the questions or provide the differences, examples and changes. It has since been over 24 hours since his response and he has edited this discussion page twelve times. Since he has had time and is either unable or unwilling to explain himself, in my opinion his points become moot. Aspects (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that you can't dispute those basic principles that you oppose. You can oppose me, but you can't oppose those principles. Are you just going to ignore the principles on the ground of having the upper hand in a weak consensus?
I did respond, to most of the questions and responded to the archived discussion as asked here. Part of the reason why it took me so long is for reasons you just stated, I had to respond to other counter-points in the last 24 hours, it takes time to find links and edit replies, and I have a life, which I'm neglecting for the sake of this. Please show some patience, and tell me what questions I have yet to answer.Oicumayberight (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Gnevin far to slow? Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. Your suggestions unfortunately leave it open for personal interpretations and can lead to similar cases in the future. Up above John was clear about it, either an icon is a decoration is determined by the community and that's the safest way to go unless it's desired to keep having such discussions again and again. Once the community consensus says an icon is a decoration and needs to be removed, the case would be closed.--Termer (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Slow meaning one of the core prinicals is WP:Be bold. Why discuss every removal when such as very small number of them are ever be objected. Every thing on wiki is open to personal interpretations, what is WP:V,WP:CON,WP:CIV etc etc . I'm with Aspects both of you have had plenty of time to suggest meaningful improves and have failed to do so. Not only what you've wikilawyored every suggestion made by me . Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Gnevin, You asked for civility review. The first part of the above talks about content (good) -- starting with I'm with Aspects is starting to slip into WP:NPA and lack of WP:AGF (not so good). I know it's frustrating, but monitoring this it does look like ya'll are making some, albeit slow, progress. Keep being patient and WP:CALM. Gerardw (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Boldness has caused problems in this case. Now is the time to be patient, especially since we are not talking about an article:
'...but please be careful WP:BOLD
Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. But there are some significant changes that can be more lasting, for better or for worse, and that are harder to fix
Non-article namespaces
Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces.
Oicumayberight (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support all of the four points made above. Icons are useful, attractive, and engaging. Even the flags themselves are educational, which is what an encyclopedia is designed to do. Until I looked at a few of the UFC pages, I had no idea that England's flag (England) was different than the flag for the United Kingdom (United Kingdom). The articles that have a few icons on them, even if one were to call this "decoration," attract then hold a reader's attention to them. Look, even my little post in the RfC has more juice now that it has some color splashed in! This is a good use of icons and should be encouraged.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is pretty clear by now that this guideline has a life on its own. It might have been going on for a while but it needs to end at some point. If this guideline wants to maintain it's status at all, any changes to it should be discussed on this talk page. I have reverted the guideline to the revision264742308 as edited by Aspects at 21:31, 17 January 2009 for now. Also, before making any conclusions about WP:ICONDECORATION, the questions above need to be resolved. --Termer (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral wording?

So now we are ready to discuss all changes to this guide? So much for WP:BOLD. Well, I guess that's progress. I did discuss, and was even encourage to make changes by Gnevin earlier in this discussion. If anyone objects to any of mine and Patton123's changes to the guide up to the point before it was reverted [21], please discuss them here. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How would WP:BOLD apply to Wikipedia guidelines and policies is beyond my understanding. The first thing the guideline says is: Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. Yet this guidline has been edited boldly for ages. As far as I'm concerned only this bold guideline editing would disqualify the whole thing and would put it back to an Essay or proposed guideline status.. Unless some kind of consensus can be determined on this talk page. So, it's a second try.
Your attempts Oicumayberight and Patton123 were good! Please just suggest any changes on this talk page first. Now, currently and according to your edits everything under WP:ICONDECORATION would be a duplicate of or would simply belong to MOS:FLAG. A simple question: why there are 2 sub-guidelines in the guideline that address the same question?--Termer (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So the suggestion is to merge WP:ICONDECORATION with MOS:FLAG as 2 sub-guidelines within the guideline that essentially address the same question. lest see what the community has to say. Please feel free to suggest what exactly from WP:ICONDECORATION could possibly make anything in MOS:FLAG more clear?--Termer (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So your suggestion is to WP:CREEP this guideline .. Unbelievable Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Er the flag section says nothing about using flags in articles where only one country is mentioned once and a flag is completely irrelevant. I have run into countless situations where a number of users have ganged up on me and reinserted the flag. Also WP:BOLD applies to all namespaces, and is a vital part of the bold revert discuss cycle.--Pattont/c 11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that consensus was to keep the flags in those cases? This guide is neither a policy, badge of authority, nor is it an extra vote in achieving a consensus. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it's a guideline, then it's an indication that wider community consensus is as stated here. This does have some weight I think, and makes sense - it saves people who believe in a certain general principle from having to show up at every local discussion to re-argue the point. --Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The extra weight is not from authority but instead convincing points. If the guide had any authority, then it would be a policy and not a guide. A guide gives good reason for what it claims to be guiding an editor on. Hence the word "guide." So an editor doesn't have to re-argue the point because it's being made by the guide. If the point is a good point, consensus will probably agree. But if the guide fails to make the point, then it fails to guide and should not be called a guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia guidelines necessarily contain all the arguments behind their statements - well I'm pretty sure they don't, and probably shouldn't, as that would make them more cumbersome. Can you clarify, for newcomers to this debate, what specifically you (if it is you) are currently proposing be changed on this page? Its status as a guideline, or some aspect of its wording? --Kotniski (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I've clarified in the link above. But here is a link between revisions [22] for the specific changes. However, since then, Termer brought it to my attention that with neutral wording, the guide would be duplicate of or would simply belong to MOS:FLAG. So I am still proposing demotion until the guide can be fixed or made into a historical page, but I'm not assuming that it can be fixed. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Still don't understand. MOS:FLAG just redirects back to a section of this guide. So are you saying that everything apart from that section should be deleted?--Kotniski (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ask Termer what he means specifically by MOS:FLAG. All I know is that this guide was only about Flags and WP:LOGOs until just months a go when it was expanded in haste with a weak consensus [23], and that's what I see as WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think that if something happened months ago, then any objections should have been made months ago, not now. We should be moving forward by looking at the wording we have now, and (if necessary) suggesting concrete ways to improve it.--Kotniski (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Start over with a clean sheet?

This RFC seemed to have strayed off-topic, focusing more on editors than content, and perhaps that's why it has stalled, with little new discussion. Hopefully some on-topic comments can spur some useful discussion.

In my opinion, the problem with this guideline is that it isn't "crisp" enough. There are too many clauses (don't do this, don't do that), which already give it a flavour of feature creep. I may be wrong, but I believe that it can be condensed down to a few simple points:

  1. Only use where they assist the reader, by providing visual cues when browsing long vertical lists or tables. Do not use for singular (or a small number) of instances, as that lends undue weight to those few items by highlighting them inappropriately.
  2. Only use where there is a strong association between the icon and the associated text.
  3. Do not use icons that do not already have existing meaning outside Wikipedia, as it would be original research to create the association here.

These simple points can certainly be illustrated by examples of both good and bad usage. For #1, an example of acceptable usage would be something like any of the articles in Category:Lists of countries. An example of bad usage is a biographic article with flags for birth/death locations (already beaten to death here), and/or flag for nationality (e.g. Tiger Woods or Michael Gomez). For #2, an example of acceptable usage is any of the sports results pages for international competition. An example of bad usage would be anywhere we use sub-national flags to associate items that aren't normally associated with those places, such as the current revision of Russia men's national ice hockey team#Roster. For #3, that includes any invented icon, or the existing example of the UN flag to represent "the world". There are many, many, examples outside Wikipedia where France means "France" or "French", depending on the implicit context, so it's reasonable to have similar usage here.

Also, I think it should be explicitly mentioned that there are some instances where this guideline does not apply:

  • "large" images, located to the right or left of article text, inside an infobox, or in a gallery. Here, Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement would seem to be a more relevant guideline. For example, I think the RFC on the multimedia article was more related to that guideline, not this one, despite the presence of "icons" in the article. The point is that an icon image used to illustrate an article must already have an association known outside of Wikipedia—we cannot create that association, but merely report it. An appropriate example of that is the illustration of icons in the RSS and Compact disc articles.
  • icons used as part of the Wikipedia user interface itself, and not part of the article content. This includes icons found in locations "embedded" within the content, such as message boxes that apply to a single section. Some well-known examples are .
  • any images used for stub templates. The consensus for them is widespread and long-lived.

One area that might still be worth discussion is "medium-sized" icons, which are almost always used as decorations for navigation boxes (either vertical or horizontal). I note that the documentation for Template:Navbox specifically shows how to add images, and uses flags for examples. But it's still a grey area, in my mind. For example, does Template:Criminal law need the scales of justice icon? Probably not. Does it detract from the navbox? Also probably not, since the image has a reasonably well-known connotation with law. Another example is this revision of Template:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Gnevin removed the flag icons from the horizontal list of countries, which I fully agree with, but also removed the SAARC flag from the interior of the navbox, whereas I would have kept that. A third example is Template:Screens of death, where a specific Gnome icon is used to illustrate the navbox. This is one image I would probably remove, as the image doesn't even appear in any of the articles in the navbox list. It seems more like a gratuitous decoration than a helpful one.

Comments welcome — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Here, Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement would seem to be a more relevant guideline. For example, I think the RFC on the multimedia article was more related to that guideline, not this one." This is acknowledgement that this guide was misused in those cases. This also supports my point that the guide shouldn't have been expanded to include generic icons.
As for the templates for the Wikipedia user interface itself, I disagree that they should be an exception. They are seen in the articles and could be considered just as "childish" or "meaningless" as any of the icons I used. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have icons from the same collection.
Your language is very authoritative and inconsiderate of possible exceptions. It includes many "do not"s and not many "why not"s if any. That makes it more of a policy than a guide.
What makes you think that decoration is a problem in and of itself? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What does it matter which guideline is most appropriate for the Multimedia RFC? The end result is that improper images were replaced, and that's all that matters.
For Wikipedia icons, my position is that they are no different from icon usage in other applications. Unless you want Wikipedia to have an icon-free user interface, they have meaning that is learned by readers as they spend time with the encyclopedia. That's similar to the experience you'd have when learning Excel for the first time.
For the language, feel free to word-smith it. That's the issue with many guidelines—they need very careful editing to be "crisp" and accurately reflect consensus.
And finally, I do not think decorations are necessarily problematic, which is why I don't oppose decorations like the scales of justice in the law navboxes, or the SAARC flag in its navbox. However, I do think that there can easily be excessive and/or inappropriate decorations. The difficulty, of course, is that "excessive" and "inappropriate" are probably subjective criteria, and this guideline needs to be objective. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What matters is if a guide claims to be a guide but instead is used as a badge of authority. The multimedia article could have been handled with a simple discussion without a guide. There was nothing in either guide that supported the arguments made against the icons. Like you said, it is subjective. Therefore it is futile to make a guide that should be objective to justify removing icons which have subjective meaning. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stay on-topic. That RFC has concluded. Any apparent "misuse" of a guideline is a problem with an editor, not with the guideline itself. And WP:IMAGE clearly states Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic, which was not the case with the old gallery of images. Now with respect to this guideline, I have proposed some potentially simplifying ideas, and comments on that are welcome. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The particular user both misused and edited this guide, so it's not just about the user. "Relevant to the article" was clearly subjective in the multimedia RFC case. Consensus only proved that I was outnumbered. And there was evidence to the contrary of the various reasons for removal in 16 translations of the article, many more people than the local consensus. So the fact that local consensus was reached without the aid of the guide shows that the guide was overreaching in it's attempt. Can you show one case of removing generic icons that was aided objectively (not subjectively) by this guide? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the easiest would be simply returning to any previous versions when things were still under control and made sense. So I'd look back in history when was the last time the guideline wasn't edited lets say at least for a week, revert and take it from there.--Termer (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
How about some revisions or is this just a other blind alley you intend leading us all up Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be exactly where we are at the moment. Recent edits have only been attempts to find the right tag at the top; the last change to the actual content was a reversion to the version of 19 January which was stable for more than a week. So I think we can agree that the current version of the page should be the starting point for any discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking back in the history, the versions in February 2008 make still somewhat sense to me. The policy was originally WP:MOSFLAG and that's all that it needs to be.--Termer (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, we seem to have moved on from that months ago. The page now has a wider scope, and if it's to be stay marked as disputed or under discussion, then someone had better make an explicit proposal as to how it might be changed and why they think that change would benefit the encyclopedia. Then we could actually get down to discussing something.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no statute of limitations on WP:CREEP. Like Termer said, the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

Does anyone else find the use of national flags on the right side of this article to be rather bad? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow clearly it's a case of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason with emphasize bold underlined and italics Gnevin (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove disputed tags

This MOS has been marked as disputed for just about a month now and we've been talking in circles for that time. I still don't understand what the 2 main objectors issues are. Others and I have asked several times for the issues to be made clearly and concisely . This in my opinion has not happened. Several attempts have been made to improve the wording of the MOS and have been shot down . I would contend we remove the disputed tags until such time hat the arguments being put for it as a disputed guideline are made clearly and a CON of people agree with them. Gnevin (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: Debate has been obfuscated. Clear disputes have been ignored. And the only response to the RFC supports the dispute. If you don't understand the issue, then perhaps you haven't been reading. At least 2 others here obviously understand my disputes and agree. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of this guideline was started up to determine what is the consensus on the questions. So far I haven't seen any. So this guideline remains under disputed or under discussion until a WP:Consensus can be reached. So once again, I'd suggest on positives and spell out everything that the most can agree on to avoid the guideline going to a {{failed}} status. The way I see it, the guideline was meant to deal with s.c flag-icons and it should stay this way. Things still made sense up to February 2008, after that it has spiraled out of control as many people have been editing it as they please without addressing Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.--Termer (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
One well accepted way of doing that is the WP:BRD method. If something that was done a year ago is still here, that means it silently gained consensus over that time. So please, if anyone wants to keep the disputed tags on this, can they spell out a concrete proposal for change, properly reasoned, understandable to everyone, without veiled personal attacks, so that we can discuss it in terms of what's good/bad for the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The expansion to include generic icons has only been around for months. It's only been used in four cases and was met with resistance in two. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
But the support prevailed over the resistance even in those two cases. If it's currently 4-0 to the guideline, this doesn't seem the right time to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, that says nothing about the effectiveness of the guide in helping matters. WP:CON made the difference despite the ambiguity in the guide and misuse of the guide in those cases. If a straw poll was sufficient, then the guide is useless. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The value of having guidelines is to avoid having straw polls and long discussion on every particular instance, by setting out general rules that we can all accept (even if we don't 100% agree with them) and abide by (except in special cases where there is some particular reason to do otherwise).--Kotniski (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove the disputed tag from the top of the guideline. The only actual debate seems to be about the wording of one section, WP:ICONDECORATION, which is already marked as disputed. I'll start a new talk thread below to discuss the wording of that section - please let's do so civilly and without loss of focus.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The false dichotomy of the wording was not the only thing disputed here. There are multiple users here that dispute if this article is (or could possibly be) effective in helping users determine what is exclusively decorative. There are no examples of success in this area. There is no wording in the guide that helps in this matter. There are too many exceptions. Since the guide was expanded to include generic icons here [24], it's been nothing but WP:CREEP. Regarding generic icons, the guide can only be misused as a false badge of authority for anyone who want's to enforce personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute to include generic icons in the MOS

Much of the debate has been obfuscated by the decorative flags and logos examples. My position here is that the article should have never been expanded to include generic icons. That expansion is the obvious example of WP:CREEP here. Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature is all that needs to be said about generic images. And it's a double standard to allow them to decorate maintenance tags that are seen in articles, but not as a method of illustrating the subject matter of articles themselves. Please direct any concerns about overuse of generic icons to this section to avoid further obfuscation. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording of "Help the reader rather than decorate"

It has been suggested that the wording of this section (WP:ICONDECORATION) is misleading. Please suggest improvements. To start with I would suggest adding "merely" before "decorate", to make it clear that decoration is not always incompatible with helping.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to append one of the following texts
  1. An icon can be considered decorative if it's removal would not affect the users understanding of the topic
  2. An icon can be considered decorative if it's does not convey any relevant additional information about the topic
2 would be my preference Gnevin (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
K, I've scanned this page, but I haven't found a description of what exactly is misleading about the wording. I don't object to adding “merely” – but if this suggestion is “to start,” then how else would you improve it?
To me decoration means ornamentation, the opposite of function. An element is purely decorative if it serves no function at all, so it's a no-brainer that it should be avoided. But I'm not clear on how something we would add can both decorate and help. Maybe I like flowers and you like hearts, for example, but clearly we shouldn't change the square blue list bullets to either hearts or flowers. (Arguably the “book” background graphic in the monobook design is decoration, but it also serves to add texture to the page, visually differentiate its parts, and refer to the theme of encyclopedia.) In an encyclopedia, we should avoid any decoration. A good design is both functional and attractive, without resorting to any decoration at all. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 15:02 z
If any user doesn't find relevant meaning in any picture on wikipedia, that user could say that there's no function other than decorating. It wouldn't necessarily be true, it could just mean that that particular user is unfamiliar with the association or lacks pictorial literacy. The guide does nothing to help in determining meaning in this case. Therefore, the guide is useless in helping someone determine if an image is purely decorative.
Now let's just say for example someone does find communicated meaning but also thinks that the picture is pretty, that would be an example of a picture that is both communicative and decorative. There is no definition that says decorative and communication is mutually exclusive. That's only being erroneously implied here on wikipedia in this guide and in the Edward Tufte article. There is no sources for this false dichotomy. I included a source to the contrary of what's being implied from Edward Tufte's own writings [1]. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Decorative is not the same as attractive. Attractiveness is an inherent quality of an image or ornament. Decorating is an activity, and refers to someone using the image or ornament. If the element's intent is only to decorate, then it is decorative (regardless of whether it is pretty or ugly).
Also keep in mind that we are not talking about illustrative photos or diagrams, but symbolic icons – by their nature they serve a specific function: to represent something. In the case of a flag, it's a sovereign country. If a word represents that country, then adding a flag to the word is redundant. The icon differs from the word in that it is less generally useful: how many readers recognize this symbol: Guinea-Bissau? But any reader can intepret “Guinea-Bissau”. Finally, the icon differs from the word in that it draws they reader's eye from across the page – it is bolder than bold, and stands out in the text more than the top-level heading. If it falls within prose or a textual list, it is generally counter-productive.
(This also demonstrates why the Ultimate Fighting Championship example cited elsewhere is fallacious. Icons are sed symbolically, not illustratively. They aren't used in a sports article to illustrate the appearance of the English flag for example.
I don't think the yardstick for inclusion is that one individual finds an icon useful or not. It is having an intended purpose which is clearly articulated and supported by consensus. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 17:47 z
  1. "Attractive" can be interpreted as "decorative" and that's where suspicions get out of hand. It just encourages an anti-graphic design witch hunt.
  2. In some cases mentioned in this talk page, we are talking about illustrative generic images, it doesn't have to be photos or a diagram to illustrate.
  3. If text were always sufficient for communicating meaning, then no images other than diagrams wouldn't be needed anywhere on wikipedia. Text could describe everything.
  4. If consensus is what determines what is decorative, then theres no need for this guide to even make the attempt. It's just WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The phrasing in the guideline is “icons . . . misused as decoration” and “use of images for decorative purposes.” Do you really think that is easily confused with “don't use attractive images?”
What is an illustrative generic image? Can you point out icons used for illustration or description rather than as, um, icons? —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z
Very well stated. To add to this, I think there is long-standing consensus for the use of flag icons in several specific situations, such as in lists or tables of items that have close association with individual nations (such as lists of countries, or international sport results), and the intended purpose of those icons is to make it easier for the reader to pick out items of interest by adding visual cues to those lists of data. There is no consensus for the use of flag icons to tag individual instances of country names, such as birth/death locations or nationalities, as found in biographical infoboxes. The purpose of this guideline is to describe those instances of consensus, and that is a Good Thing™. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no such consensus. There are a lot of newbie editors who neither write nor read the encyclopedia, and they get a sense of satisfaction from adding shiny things to everything. An alphabetized list of countries is made worse by adding flags. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z
Personally, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that last comment, but the fact that so many "list of countries" articles have had these icons on them for such a long time leads one to believe that consensus exists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
They're easy to ignore at first. I didn't pay them much attention in the tank and AFV articles I watch, until I noticed that a stereotypical “Operators” section had eventually crept into almost every one, and was being shoehorned into places it didn't belong. This kind of stereotyped format is harmful, because without constant attention, and without guidelines to clearly discourage it, it spreads through positive feedback. Eventually we had multiple redundant lists that looked like the United Nations (rather “United Colours of Benneton” on the ass of someone's jeans),[25] main article sections were devoted to 1-item “lists” with icons to help read them,[26] items which didn't belong started to pad out the lists with “potential operators”,[27] and when there was nothing, editors started collecting rumours and recreating the stereotypical sections out of thin air.[28] This is all about people having fun with icon templates, and nothing else, and if it keeps up then Wikipedia will look like MySpace.
Many experienced editors were against this in part or in whole, but few were interested in taking the time to constantly fight it. I finally decided the only way to stem the tide was to remove every indefensible use of icon pictures in my watched articles, and keep it up. I've tried to work towards more concrete guidelines specific to the Military History WikiProject, but too many editors refused to compromise even a bit, so anything goes, and I can only make progress if I keep pushing hard and rely on these editors' low attention spans. I'm also in the middle of a ridiculous “discussion” which has led to mediation at Talk:Leopard tank. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:37 z
Comment both wordings suggested by Gnevin say that all flag-icons could be considered informative and/or convey relevant additional information and it can affect users understanding of the topic. Please see the post by --2008Olympianchitchat 22:38, 27 January 2009 above. People who are not familiar with country flags always are going to think that those icons are educational. Therefore, my suggestion is to return to MOS:FLAG that clearly spells it out, flag-icons should not be used within article text. There never is going to be any agreement on WP:ICONDECORATION in general, since what is decorative vs. what is "additional information" depends on ones personal understanding of things and therefore it is open to interpretations. At the time when MOS:FLAG has always spelled out it clearly, what kind of use of "ICONDECORATION" is not desired on Wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but now I'm even more confused. Which four points is Olympian referring to (I see four or five lists preceding his post)? What is meant by “returning to MOS:FLAG” – restoring some text which has been removed?
And what is there to disagree about? If one can articulate clearly what information some icon images contribute to an article on a topic, then they are functional and justified. But if their only function in an article about ultimate fighting is to educate about the flag of England or to “splash in some colour”, then they are not contributing to that article. Seriously, if a reader is not interested in reading about the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or if the writing is bad, then decorating it with little non-content pictures will not make him read the article, and there is no reason to try to make him read it. People refer to encyclopedia articles with specific goals in mind, and most of them are not to learn to recognize the English flag. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 15:57 z
Comment I think that Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature is an existing guideline that better conveys the idea of "help rather than decorate" without using those specific unclear words, at least for many of the non-flag images that have been discussed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So you're admitting that those words are vague. The word "decorative" could easily be replaced with "distracting" or "irrelevant" throughout this guide, because that's the real problem you are after here. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on treating this discussion as a combative exercise? I'm not "admitting" anything. This isn't a confessional, nor is anybody on trial. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think "decorate" is precisely the correct word. Why would Wikipedia need more decoration? It's already cluttered up with enough junk. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Personally, I think the existing wording is just fine. I don't see what all the hubbub is about. Can anyone show a compelling example of this wording being used to cause an actual problem? So far all the examples I've seen have been people removing icons that had no business being in the articles to being with. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The multimedia article was an example of removing images for suspicion of decoration, despite the fact that there was text showing what the images meant in the article. Even though, consensus ruled in favor of removing them, the reasons for removal were various and not aided by this guide. 16 translations of the article include the same icons with translated text [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44], evidence of meaning. The image were unfairly put on trial by this guide with the mean spirit of calling "pretty" and "childish" pictures. That same mean spirit became viral in that discussion[45]. The ends never justified the means in that case. The article were never proven to be exclusively decorative. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion in not a rerun of the multimedia discussion will you please stop flogging that particular dead donkey. Their was a massive con against does icon and even without this MOS they would of been removed. We've set to see a compelling example and in fact I don't think we willGnevin (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
He asked for an example of this wording being used to cause an actual problem, I gave one. What are you afraid of? It's just a discussion. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This example is an "actual problem" only in your mind. I can't speak for Kaldari, but I suspect that this example is one instance where icons "had no business being in the article to begin with". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem? Sure if you want to ignore the fact that 16 other translators still use the exact same icons. You can't even find 16 users who agree that the icons weren't helpful. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So your best example of this guide is being a problem is a discussion where every user but you agreed the icons where not needed . Every user who took part in the discussion agreed the icons should go. Gnevin (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The more you cling to that consensus, the more you prove that the guide was not helpful. And if you're so sure that the icons were not needed, how do you explain the 16 translations that use the same icons without insulting the translators? Try removing the same icons from those 16 other articles. See how helpful they are. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"had no business being in the article to begin with" is a personal opinion at best. Well, lets spell it out what is this "disagreement" all about? Should Wikipedia look like DOS or Mac OS X or something in the middle? In case there are strong evidence that the community supports one or another way to go about it, this discussion and WP:ICONDECORATION has a meaning to it. In case not, again, I suggest limiting this guideline to WP:MOSFLAG.--Termer (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Good God, they're articles, not graphical user interfaces! Encyclopedia articles are written, edited, illustrated, and read. Static dingbats don't play a role in these activities. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z
Who has been talking about articles? It would be silly to use any icons in article text. This discussion has always been about templates etc. and that's exactly what those are, user interfaces for navigation etc. --Termer (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This guideline is about any use of icon images in articles, whether they be in prose or not. They are virtually always inserted using a template like {{flagicon}}, but that is irrelevant. I mostly see them misused in bulleted lists and infobox tables, in the articles I watch.
I can't think of any case where icons are used as navigation links – can you link to some examples? —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 22:29 z


Yeah, this guideline is terrible. Nine tenths of its generous 3,500 words consists of what not to do, listing the most egregious defilements that a newbie armed with icons could inflict. A few passages here and there allude in vague terms and with unsupportable assumptions to situations where the pictures are starting to win over the words: “They can aid navigation[citation needed] in long lists or tables of information as some readers[weasel words] can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon.[citation needed]” This is useless claptrap, encourage those without discretion to put pictures in every possible list and table, completely compromising the readability of words. Two (of three) points in “Appropriate use” actually suggest where icons may be used; one sentence actually states a specific situation where they “are useful” (and links to an example which contradicts the guideline immediadely above).

Why is this guideline such a great top-heavy behemoth? Because bright little GUI elements have practically no place in an encyclopedia article. Because there is no justification whatsoever for 99% of the icons currently in articles, and a communal project does not have the focus or graphical skill to do a decent job of employing the other 1%.

So why is there so much pressure to include icons? My theory is that editors who don't have the patience to actually write, and perhaps not even to read, get gratification out of making an instant visual impact on an article. Give the boy a hammer and everything looks like a nail (God forbid you hand him a sticker book when he's over for a visit). See a few stereotyped examples of structured information, no matter how hard it is to actually make use of it, and he can “improve” great swaths of the encyclopedia to the same standard of glitziness.

Icons don't contribute to reading, in fact they hinder it. They're not even much good for scanning textual material. They're absent from five centuries of professional publishing for a reason.

This 3,500-word treatise could be summarized in one sentence, and Wikipedia would be the better for it: “don't use icons.” —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 20:22 z

So if your saying that Icons should never be used, then you need a policy (not a guide) to support that. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
They are used acceptably sometimes, in a very small minority of cases in the articles I watch. And I would be willing to compromise somewhat on a concrete guideline, but there are always holdouts. So I would be happy with a guideline that discouraged some bad uses. But in the meantime, there is no clear guidance and no consensus, so I work against the epidemic. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:43 z
In it's current state, this is anything but a concrete guideline. But thanks for helping make the case that it is WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Or users could put .flagicon {display: none;} into their monobook.css. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
And how would that improve the encyclopaedia for users as a whole? Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't. But it would help users who don't want to see any flag icons whatsoever, despite any consensus for certain instances that are acceptable to most of the community. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it is my intention to improve the encyclopaedia not turn a blind eye too the problem Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you – this is not about using blinders to spare my delicate sensibilities, this is about preventing this very worthwhile project from coming to look like fucking MySpace. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:45 z
What's wrong with the way myspace looks? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe this, WP:ICONDECORATION is under discussion , yet Gnevin thinks it would be appropriate to use the questioned guideline to justify his edits by massively removing images, not even icons from film templates. [46]. This has gone beyond reason...--Termer (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That was agreed with the reliant project and User:Dr._Blofeld . So I don't see a problem Gnevin (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that just strait out lie. your claims at Wikiproject film where you justified your random removals with the policies here brought me to this talk page in the first place. Where it has become evident that you have written yourself a guideline to justify your actions. And User:Dr._Blofeld did revert your edits.--Termer (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No it's not , but that is an out right personal attack. User:Dr._Blofeld reverted the discussed discussed removal of the clapper icons but even removed the random maps and people icons himself [47] Discussion Gnevin (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That's amazing, anybody clicking on the diff can see that User:Dr._Blofeld has simply reverted your edit [48]. and even has told you Rubbish. I will keep reverting you.--Termer (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you will find the edit summary was simplify to reflect a "nationwide" industry per gvin So your talking total bollocks Gnevin (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this discussion is not going anywhere. Just to answer Michael question above: any case where icons are used as navigation links? Please take a look at for example WP:Main_Page#Wikipedia's sister projects. The example given by Oicumayberight where icons were used for a navigation box was essentially not that different. Despite that the icons are even used on Wikipedia main page, this discussion has come down to a suggestion "Don't use icons". Well, I think this question needs some wider exposure, because so far the entire WP:ICONDECORATION is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, entirely dismissing the purpose of icons -visual communication all together. Also, please keep in mind that we are all here with an "intention to improve the encyclopaedia".--Termer (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I was referring to editing articles. Sure there are icons on the Main Page, but that is not an article, and we don't put an array of Sister-Project links in articles. I don't know which other example you're referring to. —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 17:34 z
Hi Michael, pick any template, those have used icons for navigation aid for ages until the ICONDECORATON was created lately.--Termer (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
“Any template?” Seriously, can you give me one example so I'll know what you mean? —Michael Z. 2009-02-07 18:01 z
If Termer is referring to the composite used in the multimedia article, I guess you could say that it was the effect of a navigation template, accept that it was only used in the one article. It did contain hypertext links to the separate articles. I'm not going to debate the effectiveness of that example because Gnevin will just call it beating a dead horse and cling to the consensus of about 5 local users, while ignoring the fact that 16 international translators used the exact same composition and that nothing in this guide justified removing it. One of the petty complaints in that debate was that the actual pictures didn't link to the articles, only the text. I guess that would be the only difference between that example and the Wikipedia's sister projects example in the main page. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that example.
“Petty complaint?” How are these navigation links if the links don't navigate to anything?! I don't care if 1,000 editors (“translators?”) have turned a simple sentence – “Multimedia contains a combination of content forms: text, audio, still Images, animation, video, interactivity” – into a set of prominent navigation links to the icon image pages!. That doesn't make it any less godawful (nor the even still worse use of icons in the next two article sections, which present the out-of-context phrases “Linear Non-Linear” and “Presentation Interactive”). —Michael Z. 2009-02-08 18:21 z
This is not an attempt to debate whether or not those icons should or shouldn't have been removed. It's an example, showing how the way those icons were used wasn't much different from the way icons are used in the WP:Main_Page#Wikipedia's sister projects section. You probably think those are godawful too. You've made it quite clear that you don't like icons.
I said "petty", but I should have said "minor," meaning that the navigation from the actual pictures was a minor problem that could have been easily fixed with an image map, instead of removing the icons. And there was navigation from the hyperlinked text below the icons.
Furthermore, There was nothing out of context about the text used below any of the icons because the subject matter was discussed in the article. You could debate whether the associations made between the text and the other icons were accurate, but that would also be subjective, because 4 of the 16 translators found meaning in those icons too. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No man, these are different from the Main Page, where 1) important projects are associated with the logos which represent them, and 2) the logos actually are GUI elements, which link to the projects – representation, branding, and links all work together. And we're discussing specific examples, so you can't just brush off the details saying in effect it's exactly like the Main Page except these aren't logos, and the links don't work. The fact isn't “petty” or “minor” when it contributes to a failed implementation.
And the others on the page are even worse from the point of view of design and conveying meaning. The Major characteristics section discusses many, but only two are symbolized by icons, which have no obvious relationship to the title. Icons should convey meaning at a glance, but you have to read the whole section before you can tell where these fall into what is written here. Finally, the design is such that in my browser “Recorded Streaming” are closer to each other than they are to the words and icons above, so it didn't even make any sense the first couple of times I looked at it. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 00:44 z
I didn't say "it's exactly like the Main Page". I said it "wasn't much different from the way icons are used" on the main page. I'm not here looking for consensus to put those icons back in the article. At this point, it won't matter why you think the article is better off without the icons. The facts:
  1. Putting an image map hyperlink on the actual images would have been a minor fix as an alternative to removing them for those who were expecting navigation to articles from the actual images and not just the hypertext.
  2. Nothing in this guide justified removing those icons. Which is what we are debating here.
  3. If consensus got the icons removed, it only makes the case for why the guide is not needed.
None of your criticism has anything to do with the wording of this guide. 16 translators, thought that the icons worked well enough to include them in their article. That proves that all reasons for removing icons were subjective. And the wording of this guide doesn't make it any more objective. It's just a poor alternative to policy, which you practically admitted yourself by saying it could be summed up in one sentence “don't use icons.” Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think List_of_Adidas_sponsorships shows the as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons argument to be false. This article would be 1000% improved with sortable tables Gnevin (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The example would take up more space if it were a sortable table. It would have columns and rows with a bunch of unused space. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The flags in the Adidas list are not used as GUI elements, but merely as slightly annoying and less useful substitutes for abbreviations, or for the subdivision of the lists by subheadings. It's also not WP:ACCESSible, because the flags have incorrect alt text. In a text-only browser part of the page looks like this:
   [edit] Africa

        * Flag of Egypt El Zamalek
        * Flag of Morocco FUS Rabat
        * Flag of Morocco Hassania Agadir
        * Flag of Morocco IZK Khemisset
        * Flag of Morocco Jeunesse Massira
        * Flag of Morocco Kawkab Marrakech
        * Flag of Morocco Wydad
        * Flag of Tunisia Étoile Sportive du Sahel
        * Flag of South Africa Orlando Pirates FC
        * Flag of South Africa Camps Bay FC
I can think of two or three ways to improve this by eliminating the flags.
If you insist on considering them GUI elements, then they are poorly used here. The same flag links to File:Flag of Germany.svg in one place on the page, but to Germany in another. Also, why does any one article or list need 91 links to the article United States? —Michael Z.

Arbitrary section break

Flag icons used in infobox fields that have only one or two entries mess up the printable version of the page.

I favour this wording of the section:

Icons should not be used solely to improve the visual appearance of an article. Icons which do not provide extra information to a reader or improve the readability of long lists are usually just a distraction (example). Generally, infobox fields containing only one or two entries and articles where nationality is not important should not use flag icons.

The reason for not including flags in infoboxe fields with just one or two entries is simple; look at the picture on the right.--Pattont/c 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have debated with editors who hold the opposite view: preferring to remove icons from lists and tables in the article, but to add one in such an infobox to identify the origin of the article's subject at a glance. Since an icon functions in such an attention-grabbing way, this may be defensible as a useful application.
If the problem is only print layout, then that makes this a technical problem, not necessarily an unacceptable application.
I'm not against your proposal; just saying that this may not necessarily be the easiest example to get consensus on.
I have seen no evidence that icons necessarily improve the readability of long lists, so I am against stating this. I have only seen specific applications where they may help discern particular qualities in lists. For example, in simple alphabetized lists they are worse than useless. But they might help quantify a third or fourth-order attribute of a mixed list (such as the proportion of silver medal winners who came from a country over a time period, or in a range of events). —Michael Z. 2009-02-08 17:37 z

This discussion has gone in circles for at least 5 rounds by now and again things go into territories that have nothing much to do with the questions raised. Or anther way to put it like Ive also already pointed out, A simple question repeated: why there are 2 sub-guidelines in the guideline that address the same question??? The example given here is also covered with MOS:FLAG what has that to do with ICONDECORATION? The bottom line: everything under WP:ICONDECORATION would be a duplicate of or would simply belong to MOS:FLAG.
But lets return to the reasons for this discussion. Its about that WP:ICONDECORATION has been used to justify the removal of basically all icons from WP. Michael asked for examples. The whole thing that brought me here was an edit warring over filmlist templates where edits by Gnevin still get reverted. [49]. So please see for example the Template:Americanfilmlist. Multiple reasons starting from WP:OR to Icondecoration have been given in order to get rid of the icon in the template.--Termer (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Their was no edit war, do you even understand what an edit war is . I posted i was going to remove the icons, people agreed, 2 weeks later I started to remove stuff and users objected.I discussed further. No edit war. Gnevin (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, for the last time before I give up: this is yet again another circle, anybody who would take their time and look at the history of Template:Americanfilmlist can see that your edits get reverted. You have run another round of your removals on February 5 on the Category: Film country list templates justifying your actions with WP:ICONDECORATION that has been under discussion here since January 12, when I took the discussion away from WikiProject film to this talk page here [50]. As things have not moved an inch since, and you keep using WP:ICONDECORATION to justify your removals meanwhile, this discussion unlike you say "I discussed further" has been unfortunately meaningless. The bottom line, I haven't seen any consensus on this talk page while the supposed guideline gets edited boldly. And since this has given me an answer to my original question posted at Wikiproject film [51], my job is done here.--Termer (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The expansion of the guide

Oppose expansion of guideline I think that this guideline has ballooned well past what it needs to be. It started out as a guideline on little flags, and now it is way beyond that. I agree with Oicumayberight and Termer 100%. This should go back to being just a flag guideline. Why do we need to expand it any more than it was? We should let individual editors and projects decide how they want to craft articles instead of trying to centrally control everything. Somehow a guideline about logos got added on as well, although there was no need to duplicate what already exists at WP:LOGOS. That section at a minimum should be excised as it sets different standards than what already exists at the other guideline--2008Olympianchitchat 17:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Second that Opposition: This guideline has failed to mediate conflicts regarding the use of generic icons. It gets into too many grey areas. It could only work as an excuse to enforce personal taste. Anyone who claims that they don't find meaning in such icons could be just admitting their own lack of pictorial literacy or unfamiliarity with the subject. It also invites mean-spirited incivility in the discussion with the temptation for those in favor of removing icons to engage in feigned incomprehension and actually lie about whether or not they find meaning in the icons. Anyone who claims that icons are meaningless can't be speaking for everyone because they'd have to survey everyone who saw the article to prove the negative. This guide had a good reputation when it was just about flags. Personal taste (or the lack thereof) and mean-spirited bureaucracy can't piggyback on that good reputation. Now that reputation is being ruined with the overreaching attempt to include generic icons. It's a classic case of WP:CREEP. There was plenty of evidence even before the expansion that it could be overreaching.[52].

I've been working to improve this guide for six months now, but I don't think it's possible to make the guide fair or objective enough when being used as a reason to remove generic icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Rewording

This conversation is very circular and has gone off-topic. Here is a suggested rewording of "help the reader rather than decorate" that attempts to take account of all the issues raised. It does not alter the meaning of the section, it just attempts to clarify it. Ideally, it would be placed near the top of the page, with the exceptions listed underneath.

Purely decorative icons should be avoided. Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes. While some readers like to add icons in order to give visual interest to a page, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, and one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's ugly distraction. For this reason, it is better to avoid icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide extra information about the subject of the article). Exceptions to this rule premise may be found below.

I hope this helps. Cop 663 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good, except I would change "purely" to "exclusively" and change "rule" to "premise." It's good that you mentioned distraction because that's the real problem we are trying to solve, not decoration. You could probably replace the word "decoration" with "distraction" throughout the guide and it would be less subjective. The elephant in the room is that some advocates for the guide are against decoration for personal taste reasons other than distraction.
BTW, the wording in that section is not the only problem with this guide. Some advocates for this guide have tried to downplay the problems with WP:CREEP and excessive subjectivity by removing the dispute tags and archiving the discussions before disputes were resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Oicumayberight attempt to neuter this proposal ,with out actively agreeing with Cop663 , and I bang my head repeatedly against the wall that the buzz word of WP:CREEP has been throw out yet again Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I partially agreed with Cop 663. What problems do you have with my suggested modification with the wording?
And as for WP:CREEP, it's not just a buzz word or there wouldn't be an essay describing what it means. CREEP is a pattern that this guide reeks of. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm not interested in the WP:CREEP issue, I'm just try to clarify the meaning of the paragraph. Whether or not the sentiments in the paragraph are good is a different question ... I just think that if it IS going to be there, it should at least make sense. Does anyone have any objections with the wording as it now stands? Cop 663 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Purely decorative icons should be avoided. Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes. While some readers like to add icons in order to give visual interest to a page, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, and one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's ugly distraction. For this reason, it is better to avoid icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide extra information about the subject of the article). Exceptions to this rule premise part section of the MOS may be found below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Those words were indeed redundant. Cop 663 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not redundant to say "exclusively decorative." The dictionary defines decorative as "That which adorns, enriches, or beautifies; something added by way of embellishment; ornament" [53]. That means to some if not most, the meaning of the word "decorative" simply means to add beauty, regardless of any other function. To criminalize the word on wikipedia would falsely imply that beauty and meaningful communication are mutually exclusive. Therefore the word exclusive wouldn't hurt and would only serve to clarify meaning. Gnevin is obviously against such clarification because he prefers the heavy handed approach. There is plenty of evidence that he is using this guide as an alternative to policy and prefers that it is seen as a strict policy, not a guide. So it's obviously not any redundancy in the word "exclusively" that he is concerned about. He is instead worried about softening any fake authority that may come from this guide due to his bias against any possible proper use of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The current wording is the best I've seen so far, but perhaps not far enough. It should be noted that I too prefer the clear approach (call it "heavy handed if you want). I don't see what would be wrong if Gnevin was indeed against the use of icons. Their value is indeed limited, and the "possible proper use" of icons is clearly a matter of debate. I am wary of any wording change that expands the scope for their usage. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are for a "clear approach," then you should be for the clarification of "exclusively decorative." Discouraging proper use of icons is not just heavy handed. It's dishonest. Improper use of icons is a matter of debate as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Reads like a champ.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Which version do you support? I think it was fine until Gnevin remove the word "exclusively" despite the ambiguity of using the word "decorative" by itself and the false dichotomy it implies. We don't want to discourage proper use of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would tighten this up quite a bit. I think that guidelines need to be simple.
Icons should not be added for decorative purposes. Avoid icons that do not provide additional information about the subject of the article. Exceptions to this section may be found below.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008Olympian (talk • contribs)
I'm glad you are using words like "should not" instead of "do not." That sounds more like something you'd expect from a guide, not a policy. Tightening it up is also a good idea. However, we can be even less vague and still use less words. We know that decoration is not a problem in and of itself. Distraction is the real problem. I don't have anything against something that is exclusively decorative, but I do see how that practice could easily be overused to the point of it being distracting. So I'm willing to go with the obvious consensus that exclusively decorative icons should be discouraged. However, if an icon serves another useful purpose, but just so happens to look pretty in the process, that could be wrongfully discouraged by this guide. That would be discouraging proper use of icons. Anyone could wrongfully remove those icons because they were pretty regardless of any additional usefulness. So I suggest this simple wording:
Icons that serve no purpose other than to decorate should be avoided and removed if found. Anyone who wishes to improve or keep the icons should prove that they serve an encyclopedic purpose other than decoration according to WP:CON.
The other problem is that it would be impossible to list all exceptions of proper use, or list all examples of improper use in this guide, because there is too much subjective gray area. It's like trying to define pornography. There was an attempt to define pornography in the United States Supreme Court. The only thing the supreme court judge could say is that "I'll know it when I see it." Oicumayberight (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
decoration is not a problem in and of itself. Disagree, if you want decorations by a copy of home owner today Gnevin (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You are basically saying that beauty is a problem in and of itself. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No I don't care if it's pretty icon or ugly icon once its encyclopaedic and expresses something better than words its not decorative Gnevin (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should be as simple as possible. However, I think it is still valuable to explain why decorative icons should be avoided, because a common gut response from some readers is "pretty flags are harmless". For the same reason it's helpful to give an example. Here's an attempt at tightening it.

Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Hence, avoid adding icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name does may not provide extra information about the subject of the article). Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose other than decoration according to WP:CON..

Are people OK with this?Cop 663 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the last bit makes no sense, we are building the CON here . No need to say the guideline has CON, its a guideline which implies it has CON Gnevin (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I would change "does not provide extra information about the subject of the article" to "may not provide extra information about the subject of the article." If the article was about a flag or the flag was used as a pictorial way of contrasting information, those would be examples of extra information. Make that small change and I'm OK with the wording of that part of the section. I still have a problem with the title of that section and the WP:CREEP is beside the point. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Cop 663 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we add the word "merely" in the title of the section to read: "Help the reader rather than merely decorate," that would remove the implication of mutual exclusivity. The combination of the new title and the new wording in the section would at least end the dispute over wording in that small section for me. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Help the reader rather than merely decorate

Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Hence, avoid adding icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name may not provide extra information about the subject of the article). Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

Do we all agree with this ?Gnevin (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Support.Cop 663 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Kransky (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors who wish to add or keep icons

Part of my suggested wording was accidentally remove [54] while Cop 663 was attempting to cut and paste. I think it's important because it is a guiding instruction that would help with the mediation process. Without mention of this, newcomers may be lead to believe the case is closed upon suspicion with no reason to discuss it on talk pages, discouraging case-by-case mediation. I think it should be included too.

Anyone who wishes to improve or keep the icons should prove that they serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration according to WP:CON.

All this does is emphasize that discussion is (in fact) an option and states who has the burden of proof in the discussion. Does anyone disagree with this inclusion? Oicumayberight (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it' over kill Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Gnevin. Consensus is an implied policy and doesn't have to be repeated here, especially with the obtuse "WP:CON" link. The sentence is also imprecise—which clause does "according to WP:CON" apply to? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's that bias again, leading me to believe that the advocates for this guide just want a false badge of authority. Almost everything in this guide is covered or implied by some other wikipedia guide or policy with the exception of the WP:CREEP. As for CON it applies to keeping icons in articles despite this guide. But I guess those looking for a false badge of authority wouldn't want that fact mentioned in a guide design to substitute for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's that lame catchphrase again: "false badge of authority". It doesn't apply in the slightest to my comments, so please desist. Focus on the content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am focusing on the content. This guide lacks real guidance. The maintenance tag only calls for removal, as if discussion and WP:CON is not an option. Based on your premise that mention of WP:CON in this guide need not be mentioned because it's implied, there is nothing in this guide that isn't implied or covered by another guide or policy. So your reason to exclude mention of WP:CON would invalidate almost everything in this guide as necessary. If you just want to discourage use of icons whether proper or not, that's a bias. If you don't want this guide to actually guide someone in a dispute over icons, that would be using this so-called guide as a wp:policy, and yes, a false badge of authority. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
With respect to the maintenance tag (I presume you mean {{Icon-issues}}), it is no different from most of the other dozens of cleanup templates. With respect to the lack of explicit mention of our consensus policy, it is no different from most of the other style guidelines. I hope you wouldn't suggest that WP:Manual of Style (text formatting), for instance, is flawed for the same reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP:Manual of Style (text formatting) is not as subjective as this guide and also isn't filled with words that disguise it as a policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A claim has been made that mentioning the fact that anyone who wishes to improve or keep the icons should prove that they serve an encyclopedic purpose other than decoration according to WP:CON would be excessive in this guide. I've explained why it would be useful in the guide, to actually do some guiding instead of just preaching and commanding as if this is a wp:policy. They have yet to explain why it would hurt. Instead they just slapped on the subjective label of "excessive."

In my opinion the expansion of this guide to include generic icons was excessive WP:CREEP because most of the cases involving generic icons were rare and had to be settled by WP:CON anyway. And the guide didn't help much at all. The generic icon removal cases that weren't resisted were from editors of this guide, so they already knew the criteria and didn't even need the guide.

Does anyone have any objection to including the line mentioning the option of WP:CON mediate besides the baseless claim that mention of WP:CON would be excessive? If not, does anyone besides myself support inclusion? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I object. It's unnecessarily authoritarian in tone, and it's already implied by the previous sentences. Keep it simple, keep it friendly.Cop 663 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The previous sentence is only a criteria for inclusion. It's not a guiding instruction for how to proceed if an icon has been mistakenly removed. This guide lacks instruction for proper use of icons, making it biased. If I have to scrutinize every word of this guide for non-neutral hypocrisy, it will be on the admin notice board. And how is the word "should" any more authoritarian than the 15 times the phrase "do not" is uttered in this guide? Oicumayberight (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha. You see, I thought it read like more like a warning than a guide. Perhaps the reason it sounds authoritarian is that you don't "prove" things by consensus, you "agree" to them, i.e. it's a collaborative process. So, a more positive way of phrasing it may be "Editors who wish to add icons may need to develop a consensus that they serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." Cop 663 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that consensus is not the same as proof. Consensus is the potential result of proof. But you are correct in pointing out that the word "prove" could be misleading, especially since it's impossible to prove a negative. Add the phrase "or keep" icons after the word "add" in your last rewording and we are in total agreement. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds sensible.Cop 663 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So it would read:

Editors who wish to add or keep icons may need to develop a consensus that they serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

Does anyone disagree with this inclusion? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes , I don't see the point. Your the one always talking about WP:CREEP and this suggestion is just creep. User's don't need to develop con to add icons , they can be bold and just add them. Consensus would be required to keep icons but that's the same as any content dispute . Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh surprise! "You don't see the point." There's that feigned incomprehension again despite the fact that I spelled out the point of what the line was for.
So you are implying that it's only WP:CREEP if it could work in favor of keeping icons. But anything that "Strongly" discourages the use of icons seems to be acceptable to you. Talk about a double standard. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not implying that at all. I just don't see the need to add something that we all already know about . Its a core policy of wiki which we don't need to spell out Gnevin (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no harm in mentioning it, and it could only help as a reminder in this guide. It also is a guiding instruction other than "remove icons" which you seem to be so in favor of. This guide needs to mediate and guide through disputes, not instigate disputes. So if it's fair game to suggest removing icons, it's also fair game to suggest forming consensus to keep icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've nothing to say too your catchphrases . If you wish to discuss the content then do so with out pulling these meaning less catchphrases out in every discussion . Gnevin (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a dirty trick, putting a separator in the middle of the discussion as if it was a whole new discussion right after the part where another user agreed with me [55]. I'm surprised you didn't archive it like you archived the evidence of CREEP. We wouldn't want to draw attention to the fact that someone else agrees that my stated reason for the proposed inclusion "sounds sensible" [56] if you are accusing me of only making "meaningless catchphrases." Nice attempt to hide consensus that didn't go your way. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I would an apology for your above personal attackt before I request an Admin to deal with your shocking lack of good faith and total incivility Gnevin (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the original language to which Oicumayberight refers. Including these instructions would make perfect sense.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So we have 3 users that support it with the new wording and one user against it. Any other comments? Oicumayberight (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been on holidays for the last week and am now in catch up mode in both wiki and real life. I would like to read thru all this and comment in the next day or so. --Merbabu (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Using flags, seals and other icons in the title bar of navboxes

I came across this discussion on Template talk:US Presidents#Seal in title bar whether to keep the Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America in the navbar on {{US Presidents}}. The argument to keep it was that it distinguishes the template from others that also use some sort of flag or icon. The argument to remove it is that it is completely illegible in an icon scale.

I was hoping something currently on MOS:ICON specifically and explicitly addresses this issue, but I can't find anything. Is there something currently on MOS:ICON now that is related this issue; or if not, should there be? There seems to be a bunch of navboxes like that one that use icons in the navbar that may be completely illegible, especially for people with widescreen monitors. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • One of the problems with this MOS that we have been discussing is that it can't be specific enough. Whether or not an icon is legible at any given small size can only be determined on a case-by-case basis with consensus. The example you show is not legible at that small size, but I don't see that as a problem in and of itself. If it's distracting to readers, then that's a real problem. That could be determined by consensus as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see the use of any image on a navbox title bar to be discouraged, whether it is illegible or not. I think that larger images inside a navbox, such as the seal inside {{US Presidents}}, are much more helpful to illustrate the navigation topic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't have to be completely legible, just clearly distinguishable, but at that size it is not. One clear symbol next to the title could serve for identification, but framing it with two is excessive. And yes, this is a judgment call: the guideline doesn't get that specific. —Michael Z. 2009-02-11 16:24 z

Comment Since we are all replying to a template can I re add [57] Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) .

I think “main space” already covers it, but whatever. (Better: adj. main-space.) —Michael Z. 2009-02-11 16:50 z
Please just don't say "templates", as that is misleading and confusing. Templates can be any wiki markup that is transcluded onto other pages. I think it is better to use phrasing that describe the type of page element, not how it is rendered. Say "infoboxes" and "navboxes", but not "templates". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

MMA related articles and its related editors are repeatedly violating the manual of style for these flag icons. For example:

  • Remy Bonjasky - flag icons in the infoboxes and repeated use of icons in the "Titles" section for every opponent they have fought. And the Randy_Couture article under the "Mixed Martial Arts record" section.
  • Event pages like UFC 93, UFC 94, UFC 95, among other articles also have flagcruft.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is just encouraging the blatant violations as the majority of the editors there just revert you if you try to remove these violations and any change for reform on the projects talk page is also shot down because of the majority of them believing just because all MMA articles or other projects having this violation, then there is nothing wrong. In addition, confusion arises with all these flags because there seems to be no consensus on whether the flags on these articles should be for the place a fighter is coming out of, the place of birth or the nationality of the fighter. Because of this overly hierarchical project, these articles will suffer with the mass amount of icons on them. More outside participation in their discussions about the flag icons needs to occur otherwise this will continue. — Moe ε 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know much about MMA, but there is precedent within other sports. For example, tennis and golf players (especially) have a strong association with their nationalities, and you see this frequently in outside media, including reliable sources we use on Wikipedia. The PGA TOUR website show little flag icons next to each player's name, and it seems you can't watch a Federer–Nadal match on television without the Swiss and Spanish flags being shown every time the score is shown! Therefore, the corresponding Wikipedia pages for those sports can reliably add flag icons without controversy. With respect to MMA then, I think the salient question is how closely aligned are the individual fighters with their nationalities? Is that something you usually see in the reliable sources used for match results, or is it something added only by Wikipedia editors? If it is the latter, we've got a problem. I took a quick look at http://www.ufc.com and not only do I not see any flags, but I don't even see a listing of nationality per fighter (only height, weight, and record). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Watching MMA events myself, mostly UFC, the most a fighter has in association with a flag is that before they start to fight, it is announced what state/country they are fighting out of, which is what is generally placed in articles, but confusion arises since none of these articles specify a country next to the flag name and they don't specify what it means, as sometimes the nationality, place of birth and place they are representing are all different. Regardless of what flag or meaning is put in there, the issue of whether it should include flags at all remains to be the problem. — Moe ε 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely why they should be removed from MMA articles, then. Since the choice of flag meaning is made by the Wikipedia editor instead of by outside sources, and that choice is not explained anywhere inside any of those articles (as footnotes, perhaps), those articles would certainly fail several Wikipedia policies. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* Well if it was that easy, I would have removed the various violations already. I already explained that this is not a international sporting event to the folks at WikiProject MMA, but they revert me and insist that it is indeed one. — Moe ε 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I want to give you a statistical outlook of this projects article quality:

Summary: 1 featured list and 1 good article both of which have excessive icons. — Moe ε 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As it is the newest sport in existence, that it has this many articles already says something. As it attracts more fans, it will expand it's selection of featured articles. Considering that Wikipedia as a whole has only one in 1,130 featured articles, the "projects [sic] article quality" is the same as the encyclopedia as a whole, and another article is pending review as I write.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Newest sport in existence? The UFC promotion itself may be new and even the current rules might be somewhat new, but your project covers all of MMA. MMA as an organized sport has been around since the early 1900s. Other sports that resembled modern day MMA originate back in the day of Olympic Games in B.C. times. It's hardly a new sport; it's just recently gotten more attention than it has previously.
Anyways, your statement is inherently false as MMA doesn't represent the entire encyclopedia only a small portion of it, and this small portion in particular isn't doing too well. Only two articles out of the 1,000+ articles you cover (and there are more than likely articles that need to be created) are considered featured or even 'good'. Either the system in which the articles are being rated is failing (which I highly doubt) or the way mixed martial arts articles are written has to be changed. And with the majority of the articles covering mixed martial arts seems to be event pages clogged up with flag icons or biographies with icons in the infoboxes and results tables, there seems to be a correlation between the lack of quality and flag icon use. — Moe ε 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My statement is that the feature article rate for MMA articles is the same as that if the encyclopedia as a whole, which is demonstrably true from the numbers cited above. A lot of the MMA articles do need to have their ratings upgraded. One of the larger articles is currently undergoing a feature review, and despite a lot of work that has been suggested, not one reviewer has mentioned anything about the flags. The shortcomings in the MMA articles are mostly a product of difficulty in finding reliable sources, as MMA, despite huge popularity and ratings and PPV buys that only in the last two years have exceeded boxing and pro wrestling, does not yet receive the coverage by major media outlets that other sports enjoy. It is laughable to think that is has anything to do with the flags.--2008Olympianchitchat 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The similarities between the projects total and the Wikipedia total is flawed, as there isn't a WikiProject to collectively edit every article on Wikipedia, thus making the actual number skewed. If you wanted to make an actual comparison, you would put statistics up against another WikiProject. And I'm glad no one mentioned the flag issue on the article that is under review, because I will gladly mention the issue there myself..
Lastly, I would like a source that says MMA surpassed pro wrestling or boxing in "the last two years", because the last major event for MMA and professional wrestling which came within 6 days of each other (UFC 94 and Royal Rumble (2009) respectively) it appears that Royal Rumble had a larger attendance than UFC 94. :) — Moe ε 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I need to give you a source for something that is not really germane to anything we are discussing. But since you seem to need to argue everything some else says, whether or not it relates to the larger discussion, here you go: "The debate has been ongoing ever since UFC’s pay-per view numbers from 2006 were released. The UFC broke the pay-per-view industry’s all-time records for a single year of business, generating over $222,766,000 in revenue during 2006, surpassing WWE and boxing." My point above was that even if the MMA Project has not had many feature articles, you have not shown that is has anything to do with flag use. You confuse a correlation with causation, a pretty common mistake.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation?

How can one violate a guide? One can violate a WP:policy. Guidelines are more advisory in nature. How does one violate advice? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well for this particular situation, there are more than just the manual of style in discussion, because the use of flag icons have no verifiability, which is a policy. No you really can't violate a guideline, maybe 'violate' shouldn't have been said, but you can have a total lack of regard for guidelines. Guidelines are there for a reason.. — Moe ε 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Disregarding good advice without any justification is close enough to violating a guideline. Just click through a few of those articles and you'll see that good taste is also feeling remorseful and desperately in need of a shower. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 19:59 z
If the advice is being disregarded, then perhaps it's being seen as subjective. One can neither make an objective argument for or against a subjective opinion. Maybe the advice just isn't good enough. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
But then, perhaps putting a picture of a flag next to each of ten occurrences of “United States” in a table is just useless (an objectively defined quality). We see this again and again in these articles – an editor habitually and systematically adding flags for no purpose except to reinforce a stereotyped usage he's seen elsewhere. This is how icon pictures reproduce, by using uncreative editors as their host. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 21:22 z
WP:USEFUL or useless needs qualifiers to be objective. Even with discussion, not finding a use isn't the same thing as useless. You'd have to prove a negative. Asking the editor who included the flags would be a better indication of intended use. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
What ever about the discussion above about using the national flag for these sports men, there is zero need for them at the locations Gnevin (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the flag use is that the UFC uses them in their fight intro screens. Also, fighter nationality is verifiable from several reliable sources, such as Sherdog.com. There is a discussion underway at the Project talk page about the flags. I would wait to see what they come up with in terms of sourcing before anyone here starts removing the flags or there will be a huge edit war.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the flag icons used on Sherdog.com (can you provide a direct link?) I scrolled through the site some and even found a stats subpage (you would think you could something there, right?). Stats you can search through: first name, last name, nick name, association, weight class, organization. Nope nothing. Maybe a UFC fighter's page on the sherdog website will have it? Brock Lesnar was searched for with success [58]. A nice profile that lists useful information and whatta know even Sherdog.com has the same kinda mixed martial arts fight histories like the Wikipedia articles do. The table consists of the Result, Opponent, Method, Event Title, Date, Round and Time but the only difference seems to be that they don't have flag icons. Hmm.. — Moe ε 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote nothing about finding flag icons on Sherdog. I wrote that "fighter nationality is verifiable from several reliable sources, such as Sherdog.com." See Brock Lesnar's page for an example. The idea is to prevent edit wars by having a verifiable source. I did write that the UFC uses the flags in their broadcasts. Watch tomorrow night and see for yourself. And just because a website (like this one giving Olympics results) doesn't use flags is not relevant to whether Wikipedia should use flags.--2008Olympianchitchat 03:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is you need a reliable reference that used flag icons that proves that the use is verifiable. The nationality is of course verifiable with Sherdog. What you fail to provide is a reference that has flag icons that associates a fighter with a country. Flags should be added to an article where there are undeniably a link between the athlete and the country and there is nothing to say that there is. And thank you for cleverly pointing to the website that doesn't have flag icons and avoiding the websites that actually do have them. — Moe ε 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I admit that most Olympic websites use flag icons, they are the genesis of this notion of use, but some do not, and the point is that whether they do has nothing to do with what we do here. You are adding requirements for flag use that are not in the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline does it state that flag use has to be shown elsewhere before flags can be used in Wikipedia.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not on this page, but all of Wikipedia is required to be verifiable, which is policy. The flag usage have not been sourced, as I stated below. — Moe ε 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a neutrally-worded notice at the MMA project for the editors there that this discussion was underway. I see no bias either to keep or delete at the Project, and I think that they are the most knowledgeable as to whether MMA events are international competitions.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Moe don't you have something else to talk about, i thought you said you're done talking about flags? There's at least 6 Wikipedia Projects using flags the same way, - WP: Ice hockey, WP:Football, WP: Boxing, WP: Rugby, WP: Martial Arts, WP: Motorsports - these are just the ones I'm familiar with. MMA is a worldwide sport like any other.

Sourcing

As for the proper source, I think that we have a couple of options and should decide which on would be the most appropriate. Sherdog.com lists the nationality of each fighter. The UFC.com page, however, is closer to the guideline's requirements. It lists nationality but also where the fighter is "fighting out of." I would think that this is the most appropriate to what the guideline is referring.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting into interesting territory. The integrity of our article content is assured by the requirement to source all facts. But of course there is no such requirement for the typography and graphic design of articles. This is mostly okay, because we imitate the design of encyclopedias and other academic publications, which tend to be minimalist and purely functional.
But we also report sports scores. Encyclopedias don't do this, so we imitate the TV. Too bad, because neither encyclopedias nor websites are TV.
Maybe there should be a requirement that our design innovations should follow a specific published precedent. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 06:19 z
As long as the "requirement" was a policy and not merely acting as policy in the guise of a guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
2008Olympian, your comment is the reason why sourcing for a flag is needed. You cite Sherdog nationality as a source and yet you use fighting out of as the source on the UFC website. Sometimes they are the same country, but mostly, those are two very different things. The source you provide has to accurately detail a country representation to the fighter. Country representation is not nationality or place of birth. The closest you have is fighting out of and even that is inaccurate, as some "fight out of" the United States but carry the Mexican flag around. If you have a reliable source for country representation (like the Olympics, Golf, etc.) to a fighter and the source accurately details it then having the flags in the articles may have some legitimate use. So far, you haven't provided that. — Moe ε 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And to further solidify that "tale of the tape" from UFC isn't reliable: I was watching UFC 95 the other day. Interesting to note the only time they use flags is during the tale of the tape segment and what did it say?: Born with a flag on both sides representing each fighters place of birth. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death for furthur information on that.. the UFC 95 article is reeking this, by the way. — Moe ε 05:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

::No, I agree that Sherdog.com won't work for just the reason that you mention. The only source that might work is the UFC.com page that has "fighting out of" as a source. Yet I see that the fighters themselves emphasize nationality, not where they are training. After this discussion, I think I have to concede that the flags, as used, should probably go.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---Please see my reply in the ongoing debate at WT:MMA#Flag use debate.--2008Olympianchitchat 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

I've notice that the word long has become a issue and some people feel its unclear , I propose the following change

They can aid navigation in long non-alphabetically ordered lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. Comments? Gnevin (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They can aid navigation in alphabetically ordered lists as well if the alphabetical order is not the same as the icon order. Nothing wrong with having multiple organization schemes in one list, alphabetical and pictorial. You can't spell out everything that's going to work or not work without attempting to make this a long lesson in graphic design principles.
Any adjective such as "long", "small", or unspecific quantifier such as "too many" will always be subjective, not objective. All the clever wording in the world won't change that. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Owe surprise ,you've any objection . Any B always following A is a lot clearer too navigate. Why would anyone use flags to find a country when they know that USA is near the bottom . Gnevin (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking case-by-case or in general? Supposing someone had a list of Olympic athletes from different countries with the last names in alphabetical order. Any flag could appear anywhere on that list depending on that persons last name. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean not ordered by country changed
They can aid navigation in lists or tables of information not ordered alphabetically by country as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon.Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That's less subjective, but not completely true. Some people recognize colorful pictures faster than they recognize monochrome letters or words. So even if they were ordered by country, some people would be aided by the pictures.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing subjective words like "long" from this guide. Any removal of subjectivity in the guide is an improvement. But until this guide can objectively explain what is wrong with icons, it's just a poor substitution for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You've already attempted to get blood from that stone. We are not discussing that issue. The point is not about recognizing monochrome over colour , it about knowing I'm at A I want W most user will jump a bit say now I'm at T a little more down Gnevin (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you telling me what I can and can't discuss on a talk page? Your bossy tone and antagonistic sarcasm will not change the facts that this guide is subjective and a poor substitute for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
NO I'm telling you what I will and will not discuss Gnevin (talk)
You don't need to tell me what you won't discuss. Just excuse yourself from the discussion and you won't be discussing it. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen instances where the alphabetical ordering by country is not obvious. I've seen edit warring over whether The Bahamas is listed under "T" or "B". Or should Chinese Taipei be under "C" or "T"? I disagree with this restrictive change. There is nothing wrong with grey areas in this guideline, as long as common sense is used. And you can't legislate common sense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with grey areas in this guideline as long as it is being seen as a guideline and not a policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep harping on that? The very top of the page says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style..." What else do you want? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I keep harping on that is because of the language in the guide and how it's being used. It's not written like a guide. It's written like a policy. And those who know better often fail to clarify when it's referred to as policy. If I have to compile a list of all the times this guideline is referred to as a policy, it will be for the administrator's notice board. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports infoboxes - a contradiction?

Following this discussion, there appears to be a contradiction on this page. Under the heading Do not use too many icons, it states "When added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant, as in this sportsperson's infobox. Here, a single flag icon might be appropriate, e.g. next to the national team the article subject played for."

However, further down the page it specifically states "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes."

So which is correct? Are they appropriate for an infobox, or aren't they? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes. is correct . Removed the other stuffGnevin (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but on simple comparison of the infobox on the old version of the "sportsperson" page to the current one I see less encyclopedic information in the infobox of the current revision. I see very little "distraction" inherent there, and I find an easy reference to the origins of the teams he played for. Perhaps my issue is more with how arbitrary some of the revisions have been in the name of WP:FLAG/WP:MOSICON than it is with the policy itself, but this seems the most appropriate place to express that. -- The Dark Ride (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful example

I haven't seen one like this for a while. --John (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the vast majority of examples and applications of this guide is for flags. The rest of the examples are of crests and logos. Why it was expanded to include generic icons makes absolutely no sense. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Editors also misuse those types of images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There isn't very many examples of misusing generic icons, and no examples in this guide. There certainly wasn't enough examples to warrant the expansion of this guide to include them. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate use

No surprise that my edit here was quickly reverted [59] with no stated objection other than the fact that I didn't build consensus. I should remind everyone here that many edits to the MOS were allowed without consensus and WP:BOLD was often cited as a reason. I've talked about the issue numerous times through the recent archives of this page. Here's the proposed inclusion.

Generic small images may be useful to illustrate subject matter and may be made clearer by captions.

What are the precise objections to this inclusion? Objectors may want to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Anyone who supports this inclusion should state it here as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On consensus (and apologies if this is stating the basics to experienced users), if no-one reverts a new addition then one can assume one has consensus - until it changes. If someone does revert, then that's a sign there's no consensus yet. WP:BOLD works because the ability to revert is there. WP:BOLD encourages "BOLD" actions - it's how the encyclopedia gets better - but doesn't say you can't revert a "BOLD" action. But of course, explanation of reason for revert would be most helpful here. --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand the WP:BOLD guide. I only mentioned it because boldness shouldn't be the only reason to revert my edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)
Of course - hence my apologies in advance. I wasn't so sure about your changes either to be honest, but was hoping someone might articulate my concerns better first. --Merbabu (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted because of the current controversy regarding this guideline. Normally just be bold but right now it is smarter to first discuss it and get consensus. Garion96 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As per Talk:Multimedia/Archive_2_Icon_debate/RFC ,generic icons have no place on Wikipedia Gnevin (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you brought it up and not me, I guess it isn't a dead horse anymore. That case was a classic example of how this guide is being misused and why it's vague WP:CREEP. Nothing in this guide justified the removal of icons in that article, and yet this guide was used to put those icons on trial unfairly. If we were to just randomly put all content on wikipedia under scrutiny, 3/4ths of it would disappear, and not for good reason, but instead weak consensus and personal taste. Those icons were fine in the article for 2 years until someone with no prior edit history or no sign of interest in the subject misused the guide to put the icons on trial. And in the end, nothing in the guide helped the discussion. But I guess it was good that it brought all the lack of professionalism and WP:CREEP in this guide to my attention.
  1. That talk was about 1 article, not the entire wikipedia. The only thing that talk proved was that the 5 users among the local consensus lacked the same pictorial literacy that 16 translators who are still using the exact same icons had.
  2. Sighting "as per" without saying what's relevant is what WP:PERNOM identifies as a "non-argument."
  3. The talk you sighted is neither a guide nor a policy.
  4. If there was any thing wrong with those icons, it only proved why the rare problems with generic icons should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
  5. If generic icons had no place on wikipedia, you wouldn't see them in maintenance tags, and stub templates.
  6. There's no clear distinction between a generic icon and a illustration. "Small" isn't even a clear distinction because it's a relative term.
Oicumayberight (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The icons in the fields of mathematics section in the mathematics article is another example of generic icons aided by text. This is the same type of usage that was removed from the English multimedia article despite it's re-usage in 16 translations of the article. What the two articles have in common is that they use related imagery to help readers visualize intangible concepts. The dice are not probabilities, but symbolize probabilities very well. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What's nice about the icon used to symbolize abstract algebra in the fields of mathematics section in the mathematics article, is that it makes me interested in the subject just to know how it relates to the Rubik's cube icon. [60] And yet someone may remove it because they see it as mere decoration according to this guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'Interesting' is subjective. That is the fundamental problem. That is why it would be necessary to build a consensus on the article's talk page that the Rubik's Cube icon is not mere decoration. It's a tough world. I looked at the deleted icons that you noted on the English multimedia article and I thought 'whatever', but although I don't really care one way or the other about them specifically, I can see that if they stayed, people would start adding similar icons to anything that moves, cluttering up every page with little pictures that could be argued to 'interest people in the subject'. That's what happened with the flags, and it would happen with icons too. That's why I think we have to be hardasses on this matter and make people work to prove that their little pictures have an actual point. Cop 663 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk about subjectivity, this guide can't even define "icon" in an objective way, let alone address problems with icons objectively.
Regarding the Rubix cube, it's not just that it's interesting. It's that it's an application of abstract algebra [61]. That's called illustration of a concept, not just decoration. And even if it were decoration, it wouldn't be a real problem until a majority of users found it distracting. There's no complaint in that talk page.
Generic icons are mainly used in maintenance templates more than articles, and without supporting text. Nobody is complaining or removing those icons. Condemning their usage in articles and not everywhere else is a double standard.
Wikipedia has been around for 8 years. The guide was expanded to include generic icons less then a year ago. That means generic icons have been allowed for at least 7 years. Why wasn't there a mass explosion of meaningless icons cluttering up every page in the seven years prior? That's what WP:CREEP identifies as a perceived problem, and not an actual problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would assume the reason Wikipedia article space isn't cluttered with icons of the guide you're describing is that people don't like them and they get nipped in the bud early on. I remember that when I first started using Wikipedia about 4 or 5 years ago, there was a discussion ongoing about whether to add icons to pages, illustrating their subject area (geography, astronomy, literature, etc.). It got voted down, as I recall. I can't remember the details but it might be interesting to dig up that debate.Cop 663 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If what you are saying is true, then this guide is not needed, at least not for generic icons. The problem is self-correcting. But even if it weren't a self-correcting problem, this guide would not be the way to correct it. The problem is too vague and subjective to be addressed by a guide. The heavy-handed approach is just a poor substitution for wp:policy, and not the way guides are supposed to be used. Once the guide attempted to address perceived problems with generic icons, it became even more vague and subjective. Now there is no clear distinction between icon and illustration or any image for that matter.
Frankly, I believe the reason why you don't see excessive use of generic icons in articles is because most wikipedia editors know they aren't creative enough to use them without making the articles uglier. Many would have trouble just finding the right icon and don't have the skills to make their own. Many wouldn't even know how to convert or resize clip-art without making it pixelated or distorted. The amateurs would rather use larger photos to decorate instead. For this reason, any concern for excessive decoration should be part of the WP:Images guideline instead of the MOSICON because it's broader in scope. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious section about inventing new icons

This section is dubious in that it implies that any small originally created image is forbidden. That doesn't exactly agree with the policy on original research in regards to images. This wouldn't have been a problem had the guide not been expanded to include generic icons. But since it has, the distinction between illustration and icon has been blurred. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it should probably be reworded. What do you suggest? Cop 663 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Change new too original and problem is solved Gnevin (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not even close to a solution. The whole section almost contradicts the exceptions in Wikipedia:OR#Original_images. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's tough for me to reword it, because the problem is with the expansion in the role of this guide, not just with that section. Once it started targeting generic icons, it opened up a whole new can of worms. It bit off way more than it could chew in the way of defining what was clearly just a perceived problem. I think the best solution would be to return this guide back to being about non-generic group/status-identity-serving icons. That could be done by modifying the top text to read:
For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated.
The next best thing would be to delete that section until any salvageable points could be reworded.
If the section is reworded, it should be more about forbidding the perverting of existing icons instead of inventing new ones. The example shown in the section [62] isn't really and "invention." It's a perverted fusing of well-known icons. If I were to reword it, it would be something like this:
Section title: Don't distort well-known icons. Section would read: Do not modify or use non-generic icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:OR#Original images for further clarification. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Last one sounds perfectly fine. However, just out of interest, could you give a specific example of a user-created icon that is encyclopedically useful? Cop 663 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if there is one. The wording is not to protect such an icon, but to protect just any "small" illustration from being labeled an "icon" and unfair removal of the illustration based on this guide. I'm sure there are plenty of small illustrations on wikipedia, but I don't have time to research which ones are user-created. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you give any examples of the kind of small illustrations you're thinking about? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just having trouble envisaging the problem. Cop 663 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The icon in the Template:Video Games is an example of a generic icon that could be seen as either an icon or an illustration of elements from a video game. It may not have been developed by a wikipedia user, but it just as easily could have been. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Database management system article has an illustration. Looks less like an icon than the previous example, but has no caption and could be considered small because small is relative. This guide could go on forever trying to spell out the specifics of what is or isn't an icon. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
And as predicted, it was deleted less than 3 hours after it was shown here as an example. How predictable was that?[63] Which is why I changed the link here. [64] Nobody complained about it. But it was deleted anyway. Talk about a perceived problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, that removal was wrong. There is a perfectly valid use for images (icons, flags, whatever) within navboxes, whether they are vertical, such as {{Video Games}}, or horizontal, such as {{Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)}}. They serve a navigational aid to visually enforce the linkage between related articles ("This is an article in the series of X"). Of course, those images should be closely associated to the topic; the use of the scales of justice in {{Criminal law}}, for example, is logical to me, but the use of a flag in {{Airlines of Brazil}}, for example, is only indirectly related and could be replaced. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. That service as a navigational aid keeps the icon from being purely decorative, therefore it meets the guideline.--2008Olympianchitchat 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no actual icon for Video games and just because some felt the need to pick a random icon for it is decoration. Ask your self if removing the icons meant any lost of information. The anwser is a clear no. They serve a navigational aid to visually enforce the linkage between related articles is their any evidence of this ? Don't the words This is an article in the series of X clearly show they are part of a series ? Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If one doesn't see the loss of information, it may be due to a lack of pictorial literacy on the one's part. Or it could be just unfamiliarity with the subject, which would be fine if the observer wasn't the target audience. If I applied the same negative proof reasoning to something as complex as the quantum mechanics article, I could simply delete most of the text on the grounds that I don't understand it, even after I read it. Is it fair to say that the text is "meaningless" because I didn't understand the meaning? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The icon for the video gamepad (File:Gamepad.svg) is used time and time again throughout the entirety of the video games wikiproject. Anyone familiar with the project (or familiar with video games over the last twenty years) should be able to understand what it represents. It's used in 90% of the project's templates, including stub templates. SharkD (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It didn't only serve as a navigational aid. It was a simplistic identifier of a subject matter at a glance. It illustrated what a video game may consist of on a generic rather than a precise level. If it had been on a precise level (like a screen capture of an actual game), it may have been too specific, such as being seen as about just one particular genre of video games. But the Silhouetted collage of the games controller combined with the obviously not screen captured image of a popular old video game made it symbolic of all video games. It's the same reason why corporate logos use the same simplistic symbolic style. They don't want to be associated with just one product or service. But that's all subjective. It all depends on familiarity with the subject matter (target audience) and ones pictorial literacy skills. It definitely wasn't distracting, which is the real problem targeted by this MOS guide. The way I see it, no complaint, no problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar discussion is going on here. SharkD (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I like User:Chzz/fps but that's a picture so it outside the scoop of this MOS, I don't think Generic Icons should be used pretty much at all . Gnevin (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that image does fall outside the scope of this MOS. You have to ask yourself, "What is the image being used for?" Is it being used as decoration? In that case, one might argue that it doesn't really belong in the article at all. Is it being used to identify a particular game? If so, it would be better to place the image in the section that deals with the game individually. If it's being used simply to symbolize a thing (in this case First-person shooters), then it's not very different than other icons, regardless of the source of the image. SharkD (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What about WP:OR icons? Such as File:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg and could File:United States film.png be removed using the above definition ?Gnevin (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Ireland rugby" flag the flag of an official organization that can be cited? If not, the clover illustrates nothing about rugby or Ireland, so would be an example of what not to do. As for the film icon, the clapperboard illustrates a tool of the film industry and includes, not modifies the flags. As long as the film icons don't change the portion of the flag that's recognizable as the American flag, I don't see a problem. The WP:OI is the policy for original images whether or not they are considered icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That policy is more intended to prevent distortion of facts or introduction of opinion where there otherwise wasn't any before. I.e. someone has an opinion regarding a series of facts, and uses the image to push a particular interpretation or conclusion based on the argument. I don't see how it applies in this case. SharkD (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do people feel about User:Gnevin/sandbox5 ? Gnevin (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell us how you feel about it first. It looks like a flag. Is it modified from an official version? I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the clover is not associated with Ireland. St._Patrick's Day#Wearing of green goes into some detail about this. SharkD (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The clover is associated with the holiday St. Patrick's Day. That holiday is associated, with Ireland. But the clover itself does not illustrate Ireland in the same way that a map or a flag of Ireland illustrates Ireland. I thought that the Irish holiday like St. Patrick's Day was to Ireland what an American holiday like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was to America. The way the clover was being used to represent an organization, it wasn't illustrating, but instead, branding. And if it wasn't an official flag like this one, it misrepresents that organization with original research. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Branding vs illustrating

I think I understand some of the concerns about original images. It might help if those concerned were to refer to well-accepted definitions of words such as branding, logo, illustration, and icon. Just because an illustration is symbolic and has the same graphic design style of a logo, doesn't mean it's branding anything. Wikipedia articles are not necessarily being branded here. There is already a policy against advertisements. But most of that comes from textual language, not icons. The word "icon" is vague. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags before dispute is resolved

One month on, I'd say this has run its course. If there are no serious objections, I will remove the tag from the article. --John (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I seriously object. There is no expiration date on disputes. Refusal to concede or rebut is not a resolution. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So you're holding the guideline hostage until you get your way? That isn't ok and could be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You've raised some points, had them discussed, and failed (as far as I can see) to gain a consensus for your change. At this point the tags come down, unless there continues to be a reason to display them. This I am failing to see. --John (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is holding this guide hostage. If this guide were fair and objective, then it wouldn't be any less effective with the tags. This is not about getting my way. It's about doing what is right. Removing tags is not working towards a resolution and is disruptive. I consider the instruction WP:CREEP in this guide in violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. There is no statute of limitations on addressing this violation. Tags bringing attention to that fact is supported by policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
And whose opinion is it that there is a problem with this guideline? Other than yours obviously. --John (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Termer, Dr. Blofeld, MChew and 2008Olympian have all noted problems with this guide on this talk page, just this year. I'm sure I could find more in the archives and other talk pages related to this guide. Even a supporter of this guide Cop 663 admitted that the section (that you removed the dubious tag from) should be reworded. Whether or not you recognize it, this guide has problems that won't be fixed by denial. Even if I was the only person, that knew of it's problems, those problems would still exist. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggest an alternative wording then and we can see if it gains consensus. Having the tag there long term is not a viable option. Also, the NPOV tag is for article space, not guidelines. --John (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I made suggestions for additions and rewording. If you are in support of them, then we can include them. Furthermore, I know of no such restriction on the use of NPOV tags. Since any user can edit a guide, edits to the guide can lack neutrality as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
But you failed to gain consensus for your additions. I agree with John, these tags have been here for months and nothing is happening. That indicates they should be removed. Garion96 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Lack of replies is not a failure to gain consensus. And no consensus is needed to dispute. There is no expiration date on maintenance or dispute tags. WP:CONSENSUS applies to including or removing content. There is no rule that says I must have consensus to dispute the inclusion or removal of content. You didn't even bother to dispute or get consensus when you removed my content. [65] But then you claimed lack of consensus as your reason to remove it without disputing it. That was in effect, removing content for no reason. You didn't even give it time to see if anyone else would dispute it. By your reasoning, I could remove half of the content in this guide for lack of consensus when it was included.
There is an expiration date on the RFC though. Which is about two weeks oversue. You might also want to read WP:BRD. You were bold in your edit, I removed it because 1: I don't agree 2: considering the heated discussion which was then going on this page it really should be discussed first. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
RFCs are for 30 days according to WP:RFC. And then they are automatically removed from the list.
  1. You didn't even state that you didn't agree at the time you reverted it. And even if you did disagree, you should have stated reasons other than WP:DONTLIKEIT.
  2. I'm familiar with WP:BRD and it seems that it is been applied with a double standard here. There were plenty of bold edits by you-know-who that went unreverted when I was disputing this guide late last year.
Oicumayberight (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no disputing the fact that there is a dispute. All it takes is one user to have a dispute. Disputing is not including or removing content. Disputing is discussing. See WP:POLLING. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Now if there was a strong consensus that any particular content should be included or removed, I would respect that consensus. But this guide was expanded by less than a half dozen users with a weak consensus when nobody else was looking. And this guide is now being used and misinterpreted as policy on numerous other wikipedia articles as a way around both WP:CONSENSUS and having to develop a real WP:POLICY, which would require a stronger consensus. That's Gaming the system. The WP:CREEP was a violation of the WP:BURO policy by attempting to use a guide as a policy. The expansion of this guide should have been given more time to develop a stronger consensus even by the admission of some who supported the expansion. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Please propose your specific changes below this, so I can decide if I support them. If there is no consensus to adopt changes, by default we retain the current consensus. If this turns out to be the case we would take the tags down and you could pursue dispute resolution if you so desired. --John (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made the proposals in this talk page sections regarding the tags and the sections are linked from those tags. There is no need to repeat them. The tags are part of the dispute resolution process. Removing them before the dispute is resolved is just obstruction of the dispute resolution process. The RFC hasn't even expired yet. And there is no expiration on the dispute. Disputes are resolved with discussion and agreements between the disputing parties, mediation, or arbitration. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. And there is nothing in the dispute resolution policy that instructs or allows you to remove tags before the dispute is resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I know you are terribly passionate about this but absent any consensus (or even any support for your proposal) more than one month into the process I'd advise you to withdraw and lick your wounds. Otherwise it really begins to look like disruption, which may end up having an adverse effect on your ability to edit. Alternatively, why not make some compromise suggestion or invite another opinion, though I think you've already tried that with the RfC and it didn't get you the result you wanted. Such is life. Whatever happens I don't think these tags can remain long-term, just because one editor is unhappy. --John (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from taunting by using inflammatory terms like "lick your wounds." It's not me that is wounded by this guide. It's the ability of wikipedia to self-correct it's problems that is wounded by the WP:CREEP in this guide and repeated attempt to ratify a guide with a vote. Some problems take more time to solve than one might expect. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the tag is being used as a ransom demand. Very loose and shifting definitions of consensus are being used in an attempt to justify. A tag is not to be used to protest that one didnt get one's way. Tags are not trenches to be dug and defended at all cost.

In the opinion of the tag placer, is the inclusion of their wishes the only way to remove? Is it either the tag or their way? While the desired changes to the guide are no doubt made in the best of faith and worthy of consideration, there comes a point when the methods used approach disruption. --Merbabu (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume WP:AGF. The purpose of the tags is to invite other fresh users to consider if there is a problem and add to the discussion. It's not about getting my way either. It's about improving this guide. If you don't think that the guide needs improving, then the dispute tags should be of no concern to you. The tags are for those who may wish to add to the discussion or improve the guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you were offended by a specific part of the advice I gave you. I have struck the phrase you took exception to. However I stand by the overall thrust of my remarks. Merbabu is right too; you cannot restore these tags indefinitely and it really looks like a month and more of campaigning on your part has failed to generate a consensus for the changes you wished to make. Just how long do you propose we leave the tags in place? --John (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Until the dispute is resolved, just like it says on the tag, however long it takes. And resolution doesn't mean "getting my way." If I were pushing for just "my way," I would be devoting all my efforts towards removing this guide. But instead I'm working to improve it. Resolution means discussion and agreements between the disputing parties, mediation, or arbitration. Just as Cop 663 helped us reach an agreement on the non-neutral wording of "help the reader rather than decorate," we can reach agreements on the other issues as well if we stick to discussing the content and don't make it ad hominem. My disputes to this guide haven't been fruitless. Cop 663 was able to address that particular problem that I pointed out with this guide reasonably and objectively. Surely anyone else who disagrees with me can do the same. The fact that I'm working to improve the guide and not reporting the WP:CREEP to the WP:administrator's notice board shows that I'm willing to compromise for the sake of improving this guide. I'd like to see it actually guide, rather than act as the poor substitute for policy that it is. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"Until the dispute is resolved"??? How in your mind should it be resolved and how would that not be "my way or tag", as it appears to be now. "As long as it takes" sounds like my way or tag. --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A resolved dispute is not "my way", but instead "wikipedia's way." We won't know for sure what a resolution will look like until a resolution is achieved. And if you were to discuss the content of the guide reasonably and objectively instead of making it about just me trying to get "my way," the resolution may even go "your way." Oicumayberight (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but that isn't going to be acceptable. For you to be the sole editor who feels there is a problem here and who wishes to make certain changes, and for you to be the sole arbiter of when the dispute is resolved, is not ok. Since you are so fond of these acronyms and tags, let's call it a WP:COI. For Merbabu to say it seems to be about you getting your way is not an ad hominem; as that is how it seems to me also. I like your suggestion about taking this to another venue. Let's do just that. --John (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if I were the sole editor who feels there is a problem, that wouldn't disprove a problem. Wikipedia is not a democracy. A resolution can be achieve without arbitration as was proved by Cop 663. But even if the Last resort of arbitration were necessary, I wouldn't be the arbitrator. Oicumayberight (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking my leave of this MOS/Wiki

I've decided to take my leave of this discussion/wiki as it has gotten all to personal for my liking. In all other discussions on Wiki . I've never had my good faith or civility questioned so often. I for my part feel I attempted to maintain a level head and be civil . Even standards practices such as archiving now are being called into question. I've to thread to lightly here with users who are far to entrenched . Barnstars are being give out for For protecting the templates from evisceration by those who would remove relevant icons from all templates. Well enough is enough Gnevin (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

that's a shame if it comes to dedicated editors removing themselves from discussions for those reasons. That suggests clear and sustained evidence of WP:CIVIL failure on this page. People should hve a good look at themselves. And gnevin should reconsider. --Merbabu (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that anyone finds this section relevant to improving this MOS, the civility issues have been addressed. Maybe taking a break and coming back with a fresh perspective will do this MOS some good. I've taken a few breaks from this issue myself, and it's helped. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag for Nam Phan on World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 7

If anyone is interested, it would be highly appreciated if some of the MOS:FLAG-"regulars" could chip on the dispute over which flag should be displayed for US-born Nam Phan at World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 7. Phan has strong ties to South Vietnam, and during the event the South Vietnamese flag was used for him (images), and he also has it on his gi and has previously brought the flag with him to the ring. Some feel the use of the flag is inappropriate and/or misleading and that the US-flag should be used instead, while myself argue that if not his actual nationality is South Vietnamese (though I also argue it is) - his sporting nationality should be South Vietnamese since that was the flag used for him during the event - and that that flag should thus be used per the "Use of flags for sportspeople" section. Also of relevance is a reliable source referring to Phan as South Vietnamese (link). Discussion is ongoing on the talkpage. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Highway symbols

Can anyone offer guidance on the use of highway shields within text? They're quite common, naturally, in infoboxes and exit lists for highway articles, but what about when a highway name appears within the body of the article? See Dover, New Hampshire#Geography for an example. My own inclination is to remove them as overdecoration, but I'd like to know if there's a consensus of opinion one way or the other. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed here [66]. It doesn't look like it was resolved either, probably because this guide is overly simplistic in defining the problem, let alone solving it. I doubt this guide could ever be objective and effective at solving this problem. Professional graphic design can't be summed up in a few paragraphs on a wikipedia MOS guide. This guide is overreaching in its attempt. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Deep down in it, I found: "Well, none of us are advocating including shields in the main running prose of articles. In fact, the road project's own guideline actively discourages including shields in the middle of paragraphs. Shields are typically only used in tables of intersections and in the infobox." That's pretty clear.--Ken Gallager (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that the discussion may have shed some light on this issue. I'm not denying that there is bad usage of icons on wikipedia. The reason why the issue has only been addressed in the talk page of this guide and not specifically in the main page is because there is no concrete objective rule. That's the problem with this guide, there can be no objective rules made simple by this guide that wouldn't discourage or exclude appropriate usage. And many supporters of this guide (including some editors) have shown a lack of consideration for appropriate usage. Some have even admitted their strongly biased belief that there is no possible appropriate usage of icons. The most that this guide has produced is weak consensus among like-minded users. That could have been just as easily achieved on a case-by-case basis. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More positve approach

I have made some minor changes, because the page seemed to be very confrontational, I will try and do some more work on this later. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17 7 May 2009 (UTC).

You've made quite a lot of changes, a number with little or no explanation. These changes will have to be examined closely, and could be reverted in part. --Merbabu (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Exclusion of Appropriate use (continued)

This section is a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Neutrality Dispute: Exclusion of generic icons and aiding text as appropriate usage

I changed the tag to the appropriate tag .....

It's a shame that the only short section which is not part of the "inappropriate" sections is disputed. IS it solely one editors desire to include the following?

  • Generic small images may be useful to illustrate subject matter and may be made clearer by captions
Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 23 May 2009 (UTC).
I see we are still wp:polling instead of discussing content. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, especially not for developing policies and guidelines!
It's not so much an inclusion, but a careful exclusion for dubious reasons that makes that section a problem. The guide lacks constructive criticism of icon usage. A guide should be about what is appropriate as much as it is about what is inappropriate. This guide is being misused as policy instead of a guide. There's been several similar complaints by users other than myself who are probably too involved in other projects to comment. Even if it were only my desire to have it included, wikipedia is not a democracy. At least one person has the sense to see a problem with this guide. Even if nobody saw the problem, it wouldn't mean that the problem didn't exist or was irrelevant. Instructions are to be considered creep until proven otherwise.
The exclusion of important information biases the guide towards the dubious goal (admitted by several advocates of this guide) of using a heavy handed approach to address a perceived future problem with articles. Nobody has made an objective argument to exclude that information. At least I'm attempting to improve the guide instead of lobbying to have the guide deleted or archived for the bureaucracy that it currently is. So the tag is a mild way of addressing the problem with this guide. Guides are held to different standards than articles, because they affect numerous articles. I have enough education and experience in graphic design to prove that this guide is subjective in addressing what is obviously a graphic design principle. I'm giving this guide a chance to be improved before I report it as a bureaucracy.
So far the only reasons not to include mention of generic icons as illustrations and adding text as possible appropriate usage are:
  1. One user has the opinion that generic icons have no place on wikipedia despite their wide usage in maintenance tags, portals, and key articles like the Mathematics article with no complaint.
  2. Another user who doesn't disagree with the fact that generic icons can illustrate and be made clearer with text, thinks that mentioning the fact will encourage future misuse.
The first reason is pure bias. The second reason is pure speculation of a perceived future problem instead of an actual problem as noted in WP:CREEP. Making discouragement of a merely perceived problem part of a guide is violation of WP:BURO. Now can we discuss the content of the guide and not the administration? Can we discuss why the inclusion would or would not be appropriate based on any actual wikipedia policy? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
While I don't want to see any tag there, at least your change is "less bad". thanks --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with having a tag there? Oicumayberight (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Because a tag should be only there temporarily. This tas has been there for months. And by looking at the past discussions mainly because one editor, you, disagrees with the section. Garion96 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The tag doesn't say remove after one month, two months, or "awhile." The tag says when the dispute is resolved. All it takes is one user to have a dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (
What's good about it? --Merbabu (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It draws attention to the fact that it's under dispute and invites newer users with fresh perspectives to the discussion, instead of the usual advocates for the guide who still refuse to discuss the content. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
After a while, if it is only one editor in dissent from the consensus, it can begin to look like just disruption. --John (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reluctant to discuss? While I can fully understand why people might feel reluctant to engage further in this "discussion", there's 1000's of words devoted to it right here. Have you wondered *why* people are reluctant to discuss? I'm sure you have. As for drawing attention, it's got the attention of two people recently (myself and John) and our fresh perspective seems to be "the content is fine, remove the tag." What kind of perspective would you want to see before it is removed? --Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The kind of perspective I'd like to see is one that actually debates content instead of uses wp:polling as a substitute for discussion, tries to remove dispute tags before the dispute is resolved, or tries to make the discussion ad hominem. I wouldn't call John a fresh perspective since he's been editing this guide for over 2 years [67], well before the move to include generic icons. Also I wouldn't consider you a fresh or unbiased perspective[68] because you've attempted to use the guide as policy to remove icons[69] against the consensus in a discussion, which didn't seem to go your way.
As for the time frame, some articles and guides have taken years to resolve problems. Absence of discussion is not the same as reluctance to discuss. Many users are unaware of this guide and won't be made aware until it is referenced in a talk page or in the comments of an edit. The way it's been invoked without explanation, most users will think it's a settled policy and not a guide, and won't even bother to refer to it, which seems to be the dubious intended effect by some advocates of this guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
That's a lot of bad faith in one short post. I love how you go straight from telling us not to use ad hominem arguments to pointing out that Merbabu and I cannot possibly have a valid point of view as we have been involved in working on this guideline in the past. I suggest you either make some serious effort to generate a new consensus, or accept that you are in a minority and move on to something more useful. --John (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said your input was not valid. In fact, I haven't even seen much or any of your input in regards to the content of this guide to say whether or not it's valid. Instead, I've just seen your objections to me objecting.
I was asked why you specifically and Merbabus perspective's were not the fresh perspectives that I was looking for. I simply answered the question. It seems that you didn't object to the question being asked, but now you don't like the answer. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for showing the example. A great example of accepting what I don't like and moving on. And not using WP:POLLING to disrupt. And you wonder why people don't want to discuss it anymore. --Merbabu (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is about polling to disrupt. WP:POLLING only disrupts discussion. I haven't been polling. I've been advocating discussion. Polling wouldn't have worked for you in that case either, because you didn't have the numbers. The guide was used as a substitution for policy like a badge of authority without sufficient justification in the explanation. But instead of the usual newbies mistaking it for policy, enough experienced users actually read the guide and realized that there wasn't much to justify the removal of the flags in that particular case.
Have you really moved on, or simply moved the dispute on to this talk page? Not that it would be wrong for you to move the dispute. If the flags were truly more harmful than helpful in that article, then this guide failed to prove that. That's a sign of a guide that needs improvement. Had this guide been improved and used as a real guide, it may have helped you make your case in that discussion. Anyone who wants to use this guide should be working to improve the content, not protect it from dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

←As has been pointed out, the set of editors who have been drawn to this discussion have already found consensus. Unanimous agreement is not required. More than enough time has passed, and more than enough words have been written on this guideline. It is time to remove the tag—a single disagreeing voice cannot keep this guideline "disputed" indefinitely. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet even more WP:POLLING to avoid discussion? Show the wikipedia policy that says disputes should have expiration dates. There isn't one. That's because real problems aren't solved by avoiding discussion and running the clock out, especially not for developing policies and guidelines that can effect countless articles on wikipedia. What's your hurry? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I had tuned out of this discussion because I thought that it was over. This guideline was started to restrict the overuse of flags in articles. Then some editors attempted to expand it to cover every possible icon on wikipedia on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oic and others, myself included, argued (successfully, I thought) to prevent the banning of any icon under this guideline. The specific examples that were included, such as coat of arms, were debated and others included. The point is, however, that this guideline is not a blanket prohibition against any icon, only those that have been debated and expressly included. Oic's insertion simply notes this fact and is quite reasonable.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some in-text icons

here. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC).


Dubious example

This says to me that he moved from Italy to Spain to join Barcelona. This is just a list of clubs and dates. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Using abbreviations for countries in flagicons

Would using linked abbreviations for flags be sufficient to comply with WP:MOSFLAG, as seen here? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in addition to the flags that are already there? I don't understand why both are there. The flags are awful. I like the abbreviations, but not linked, please. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Rephrase: Should the abbreviations accompanying the flags should be spelled out in full, or are they fine as they are (linked)? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the above.. you have three indications of their nationality all in one little box. Doesn't that seem a bit of overkill? The flag, the abbreviation, AND they can click the name to discover. I'd lose the flag. The abbreviation is cool, but I'd delink it. I know I'm not answering your question so I'll just be quiet now. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For comparison purposes it may be worth noting that the standard template {{flag}} uses all those three means of identification, and any flag identification must be accompanied by at least one other form. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, comply with MOSFLAG in this case would be ditching the flags. Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually three-letter abbreviations do seem to comply with MOS. User:Bluap pointed me to the Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used section which says "for example {{flag|Japan}}, or its shorter variant {{flag|JPN}} should be used first". This seems to indicate three letter abbreviations are acceptable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
All true, but this also falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Inappropriate use. Or do you really think the usage of 40 of the same English flag (plus a few other ones) makes this table more clear? Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Three-letter abbreviations would not comply with MOS; I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used should drop the {{flag|JPN}} from the recommendation. As raised in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Flags again, abbreviations are no better than flags alone. If acronyms are used, they should be fully spelled out on first use (complying with the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), even though it is not explicitly stated).
As for ditching flags, I believe that if the article deals with an international event (i.e. the subject deals with an event that deals with concepts of nationalities), the use of flags in tables/lists are compliant with MOS.
  • Hence, international sporting events qualify (e.g. Olympics, World Cup Football, World Ski Championships, F1 races, etc).
  • Events that merely involve multiple nationalities playing together in a competition do not qualify (e.g. football leagues of any nation, NBA, etc).
Some scrutiny might also need to be paid to international events, for example, an article on an international match between two teams need not put the flag to each player name in a table. In the case brought up by Dabomb87—BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award—I agree with Garion96 that flags are not warranted; the award is given to British nationalities and does not deal with sub-nationalities (nor is there criticism or commentary that deals with it). Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Suggested change

Do not modify or use non-generic icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag".


Why should generic icons be excluded . WP:OI says 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 see no exclusion for for generic icons here. They fall under the same requirement not to illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments as non generic icons86.42.65.193 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an exclusion of generic icons from WP:OI policy. It's an exclusion of generic icons from the statement "don't modify icons" from the WP:MOSICON guide. "Icon" is vague. "Small images" doesn't specify enough what is or isn't an icon. So any image on wikipedia can be considered an "icon." To say "don't modify icons" without making an exception for generic icons (like clipart for example) would be like saying " don't modify images. That would be prohibiting something as simple as changing the color of a clipart image. Guides shouldn't be prohibiting anything anyway. That's the job of policies. Trying to use this guide as a policy (especially when there is already a policy on WP:images) is WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see what your saying . The below maintains the exclusion but maintains the point about using all icons in a way that's not use outside wp
Do not modify non-generic icons or use icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag". 86.42.65.193 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"Modify" and "use" are redundant. "Use" goes without saying. What would it matter if an icon is modified but not used? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Do not modify and use non-generic icons or use icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag".86.42.65.193 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are hinting at. You are trying to prohibit the use of allusive or abstract art illustrations on wikipedia. That goes beyond icon usage. I suggest you take the issue to WP:Images guide instead of MOSICON. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No I'm trying to prevent people using abstract art in a way that is not proven outside WP as per WP:OI . Surely you've no issue with that 87.198.164.254 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. What is abstract is a judgment call and cannot be a blanket determination by a guide. It should be done on a case-by-case basis using the article talk page.
  2. "Not proven outside of WP" is not what WP:OI says. That would require negative proof. The policy states "as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Again, that is a judgment call as to whether or not a new image or a modification of an image is introducing an unpublished idea. If I show an original illustration of a cat in an article related to cats, whats the unpublished idea? It needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis using the article talk page. And removal would be based on WP:OI, not MOSICON. A "meaningless" icon wouldn't be introducing an unpublished idea if it were truly meaningless. You have to first know what the icon means before you can determine if the idea is unpublished. And the style of the illustration isn't necessarily an idea either. That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis as well.
  3. MOSICON is not the right guide to discourage any abstractions that would introduce unpublished ideas. That is a matter of WP:policy, not a guide. The policy is clear in this matter and only needs to be referred to, not reworded by a guide that only deals with a specific type of image. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, If you read that discussion you would see that this is a continuation of that discussion. The location of your anonymous IP gives me reason to believe that you've already knew that and may have even been involved in that discussion. And you shouldn't delete comments from the talk page unless it's vandalism. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not modify and use non-generic icons or use icons that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments . See Wikipedia:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag".87.198.164.254 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The part about "or use icons that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" is a separate issue than what the section is dealing with. Although it's redundant to repeat instead of just refer to WP:OI, I don't have a problem with unpublished ideas being mention as a problem in a separate section. It just weakens the point of distorting well-known icons to address both issues in the same section. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
So we have the current wording we add a new subsection
Don't not use icons in such as way that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments as per WP:OI one such example would be File:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg 86.42.75.173 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
How interesting. You claim that it's not a continuation of Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Dubious section about inventing new icons and yet you use the same example that was used in that same discussion. [70] Oicumayberight (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree with making the addition which you said above you'd no issue with? 86.42.75.173 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would reword it before using it. At minimum I would fix the grammar. The example you show is an issue of branding. If you are going to use that as an example, I would say: "Do not use icons to brand an organization or introduce either unpublished ideas or arguments as per WP:OI. One such example would be this fictitious flag not published as representing a group or organization: ."
The example maybe be related to branding but applies accross the board. 86.42.75.173 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not just related to branding, it's all about branding if you understand what branding means. If this is your stealthy way of re-arguing against the film icons, it's an issue of branding. If it's the clapper boards you are worried about, those aren't flags. Those are clapper boards with complete unmodified flags on them. That's not the same as a new flag representing an organization.Oicumayberight (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't not use icons in such as way that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments as per WP:OI one such example would be File:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg. Is a basic repeating of policy. If the clappers fall in that category then they are against policy no matter if this is added to the MOS or not . I think we compromise here . You agree to this suggestion and I will not used this section of policy to attempt to remove the clappers. 87.198.164.254 (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a "basic repeating of policy." It's a rewording of policy. Even if it were a "basic repeating of policy," what's the point in repeating policy. You can just refer to policy. The only thing unique to icons is the potential to use them inappropriately for branding. If you're not going to mention branding, a link to the policy would suffice. No need to reword or repeat it here. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Meet me half way here! I've attempted to address your issues. I think Don't not use icons in such as way that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments as per WP:OI one such example would be File:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg, is a fair point which is apt within the context of this guide but doesn't introduce any new limits on Icon usage 87.198.164.254 (talk)
I don't think you understand what you are calling "my issues." This whole guide is an attempt to introduce new limits on icon usage. There should be no limits on icons that aren't already covered by WP:Image, WP:LOGO, or WP:OI. Meeting me half way would mean restoring this guide to being just about flags. If I had my way, the whole guide would be archived or removed. "Icon" is vague. Whatever limits apply to images should apply to icons. Likewise, whatever is allowed for images should be allowed for icons. It's redundant to reword or repeat policies. This whole guide is a false badge that has been used to deceive unknowing editors into believing that this is wp:policy and that there is community wide consensus that icons should be more restricted than images. The fact of the matter is that the expansion of this guide was done with very little consensus no more than a year ago and has been nothing but problematic ever since. Some advocates of this guide are proving their ignorance of the professional graphic design considerations that are required to address any issues unique to icons. Unless you want to talk about branding vs illustrating, it's obvious that you don't understand the real issues unique to icons. If you can't accept the WP:OI policy as is, then seek to change that policy. If you want to delete icons based on WP:OI, then feel free to reference those policies in the talk pages when you delete the icons. But don't attempt to reword WP:OI here in this guide so you can use this guide as an excuse to delete any icon you don't like based on your own personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So your unwilling to compromise, your way or the high way. Well I'm off too the highway again so. 87.198.164.254 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not just "my way." It's wikipedia's way to avoid WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You have to wonder what makes this guide any different from WP:image. It all depends on how you define icon and why you think icons are a potential unique problem on wikipeda. See the points I raised in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Branding vs illustrating. "Icon" is too vague of a word when dealing with these concerns. The editors who expanded this guide bit off more then they can chew in analyzing a professional graphic design problem. It's not as simple as "small images". This is what WP:BURO prohibits. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags in lists of operates of AFVs.

For some time now there has been a dispute as to whether the flags should accompany the operators names or not. This can't be resolved by an absolute resolution since there's no right or wrong side here. Some people (like me for example) find it easier to find specific operators by looking for their flag while some find it easier to read the operators names. Because some people find it easier to look at flags it is only logical that they should be kept as it doesn't mean removal of names but allowing more people to search for the information they're looking for more efficiently.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They add a lot of clutter and distraction. I don't see what possible information value they have. See Michael Z's comments far above on this page. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's because it's different for every person as I already said, for example for me it makes identifying operators easier and the same can be said for a lot of people that's because I and many other people look at the pictures before we look at the text and it's not something that we can control it's just how analyze the articles. I actually find it hard to follow an operators list without flags due to the fact the text which is all in the same color is getting mixed up. That's partially why I always get the flags back before editing the list if you or some editor has removed them, to not make mistakes by for example mixing up the two similarly named operators like for example Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Therefore IMHO I believe that by removing the flags you actually decrease the amount of people which will be able to use the article effectively (which is what we're aiming for when editing Wikipedia we don't make it for it to be pretty because that would be art for art's sake but for it to be a free, easy to use and informative source for an average human being). You can't deny the fact that if most editors felt it was a bad idea they wouldn't use it. And yet the ratio of articles without the flags in the operators list to the articles which have them is in favor of the second so it can't be generally bad idea. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I find flags used on vertical lists of operators (e.g. BTR-40#Operators) to be a useful browsing aid. I find the solitary flag for the "Place of origin" field in the infobox (e.g. {{Infobox Weapon|...|origin={{USSR}}|...}}) to be WP:UNDUE weight for that particular infobox field, and should be removed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The proponents of using flags like this are historically unable to describe how it improves the article, and it implies a government endorsement, which is misleading. There are also the usual problems of anachronism. --John (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those who watch this talk page on a regular basis, or contribute to its discussions occasionally, may be interested in the current discussion taking place at Template talk:USCabinet#Removal of icons. The issue is whether to have an icon for almost every single link in a navigation box like this. Currently there are only two participants in the discussion, myself and another, on opposite sides. More opinions are needed to gain some consensus/resolution. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

National/subnational flags for sportspeople

Hi, I wonder if anyone here could give some outside opinions at Talk:Mark Cavendish#Nationality? We've come to a bit of a stalemate regards the use of national/subnational flags for this sportsperson. Thanks, SeveroTC 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Accompany flags with country names"

With regard to the guideline that, on the first use of a flag, it should be accompanied by the name of the country to which it relates, is this guideline still necessary now that the flagicons automatically link to said country? Surely the fact that the link is available negates the problems of unfamiliarity with the flag and accessibility. For example, despite the similarity of the two flags at flagicon size, the flags of Australia and New Zealand can now be differentiated by the fact that the flags link to the appropriate country article. Therefore, isn't it now time to do away with this antiquated guideline? – PeeJay 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since silence implies consensus, I will remove this line from the guidelines in one week if I have not had a negative response by then. – PeeJay 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means, or your proposal. But if you are saying that a flag icon makes a country name redundant then I disagree strongly. That would be like saying, I've bought a tent, now I don't need a house. Or perhaps I've misunderstood. --Merbabu (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No no, I'm saying that, before, the first instance of a flagicon in an article had to be accompanied by the country name, but since the flagicon now links to the country anyway, there's no need for the flagicon to be accompanied by the country name any more. – PeeJay 14:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen an example, but the country name should stay. That's by far the easiest way to identify a country. One shouldn't have to click on a flag icon, or look back up the list, to see what country it is (although I say that in the absence of an example). --Merbabu (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct. One of the points of this guideline is that flag icons are often unnecessary. Just the name of a country is more than enough. Garion96 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
What about in cases where space is at a premium? Sometimes, there is only enough space to have the flag. Also, it creates an anomaly in tables to have one of each flag with the country name next to it and the rest without the country name. – PeeJay 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
One consequence of this statement is that some editors think that constructs such as  Michael Phelps (USA) are in violation of this guideline, but there was broad consensus for that style long before this page was written. I would support a re-write of that sentnec or section to not "disallow" that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure whether that was in support of my suggestion or not! – PeeJay 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the guideline is that people shouldn't have to click on something to find out whether it means 'Monaco' or 'Poland'. It should just say 'Monaco' or 'Poland' right away. It's about efficiency and directness.Cop 663 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely it would say which page was being linked to in the status bar at the bottom of the user's web browser? Efficiency would be to assume that people have a little common sense, which I assume most do. People don't need everything spelled out for them, after all. – PeeJay 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The flag icon saves space, and anyone who is curious as to what country the flag represents can just click on it. If a user has a problem with that, they can always add a legend. Even a legend would use less space than repeating the country names. That's what most print publications do. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But the user who started this conversation is arguing against the use of legends. I think. Cop 663 (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought he was arguing against the use of a country name next to every use of the flag. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the use of legends. If necessary, legends can be very useful. I just don't think that the first use of a flag in an article needs to have the country name next to it any more. – PeeJay 07:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an article that illustrates your point? Cop 663 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a look at any article that includes {{fs player}}, you will see that the objective is an at-a-glance list of players in an association football club's squad. To force the country name to be attributed to the first use of each flag would be extremely inconsistent and would make the table look quite unprofessional. Obviously, the guideline has been ignored at Manchester United F.C. and almost every other club article, but I am certain that the insistence on the country name being included in some cases has prevented articles from reaching FA status. – PeeJay 14:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, "at a glance" is the key phrase, isn't it? Using flags alone does not provide "at a glance" information because you have to wave your mouse over each individual flag if you want to learn the player's nationality, whereas if words were used instead of (or alongside) the flags, then it really would be "at a glance" information because you can simply look at it. It seems to me that there is not even any need to use flags as 'space savers' in those tables, since there's plenty of room to include country names next to each flag and it would still look perfectly professional. I feel that changing the guidelines in the way you suggest would just encourage bad habits (editors using flags instead of words because they're pretty, not because they're more useful).Cop 663 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of icons as infobox labels

I've started a thread here regarding the use of icons in lieu of text labels in infobox templates. Input would be appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well face it you're addicted to flags

(apologies to Robert Palmer)

I was doing some routine non-free content removal from templates today, and while looking around for other occurrences came across some templates with a lot of flags on them. Examples: Template:Spanish National Basketball roster and Template:Houston Rockets roster. I didn't really take notice of this until later, but this usage seems to violate the MOS flags guideline. Thoughts?

Far more shocking to me...I came across this article: Euroleague

Are you sitting down? Ok, take a deep breath and repeat after me "That article has 598 instances of flag icons on it"

I was dumbfounded. Do we really need 598 flag icons on ANY article? This is some kind of record. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The flags provide additional information in graphical form. I can quickly see patterns of which countries dominate which events, trends, which countries rarely win, which countries were excluded. And if I don't know which flag represents which country, I can just point to the flag and the country name pops up without me having to leave the article. Look at all the space that was saved on that page by using flags.
Let's take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Why does the American flag have colors and symbols on it? Shouldn't it just have black text on a white background that says "America?" You say that the stars represent the 50 states. Why couldn't it just list 50 states in text form? That would be much clearer. Maybe traffic lights should have text that spell out "Stop", "Slow down", and "Go" instead of showing those "pretty" yet vague colors of red, yellow and green. I just don't like it. How far should we take this bureaucracy. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the guidelines actually recommend flag use in long lists like this; they help to break them down visually. So what if it's 12, 100 or 598? It doesn't matter as long as they're actually doing something useful. However, where I disagree with Oicumayberight is that there is no requirement to 'save space' in lists like this, and adding the country name would also be useful. Cop 663 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't advocated to exclude anything in this case. It would be "useful" to add the words "Stop", "Slow down", and "Go" in addition to the colors on traffic signals. It would be foolish to exclude the colors because a few drivers prefer text. This section (and most of this guide) is mainly about what should be excluded, not included. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a very poor analogy. Maybe we need to add to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not... a traffic signal"? --John (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So you don't like the analogy. What a surprise?! Let's add "Wikipedia is not... a battleground for personal taste" (or lack thereof). Oicumayberight (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we already have WP:BATTLE. --John (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's "WE"? Speak for yourself. I'm here to make reasonable arguments. Not make this a battle over personal taste or shoot down analogies without logical objections. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"We" (no caps) are the Wikipedia community. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. Ever think about lending a hand? You do indeed seem to be here primarily for the sake of argument. You might find it more fun to actually write or improve some articles some time. Try it, it's great! --John (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Try reading my edit history before assuming that I don't make positive contributions. It was the same type of personal taste arguments to delete some of my positive contributions which lead me to this WP:BURO of a guide, which I have also improved on. Save the ad hominem attacks for my talk page. I thought we were here to talk about the use of flags. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note I see that MOS point Accompany flags with country name: "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size." is widely ignored, and many sporting articles (e.g. 2009–10 UEFA Europa League and 2009–10 UEFA Champions League) emphasis country with flags becuase they are relevent, however they almost never actually use country names as well. This makes me question how relevent this MOS point is, because with regard to accessibility issues hovering a cursor over a flag will tell you the country, the flag is linked to the country article, and I think {{flagicon}}has alttext anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Edward Tufte. "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information". Graphics Press, 2001. ISBN 0961392142. Chapters 5 and 6 in particular.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_6&oldid=1089115463"