Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 27 January 2009

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

• WT:MOSICON

Archives

Archive 0 – Jan 2007, pre-MOSFLAG Archive 1 – Apr – Sep 2007 Archive 2 – Sep 2007 – Dec 2007 Archive 3 – Jan 2007 – May 2008 Archive 3 – May 2008 – Sept 2008

Templates nominated for deletion

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

Original research tag

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

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

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

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

What is fair icon and symbol use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me fair icon usage is that

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

So let me see if I understand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linear Presentation	Non-linear Interactive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

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

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

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

Images as icons in lists dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appropriate use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions of clapper flag icons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second opinion

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

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

Shortcut:

WP:FLAGBIO

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

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

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

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

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

• Constanţa, Romania
• Folkestone, United Kingdom
• La Plata, Argentina
• Zweibrücken, Germany - since 1959

conveys the same information as

• Constanţa, Romania
• Folkestone, United Kingdom
• La Plata, Argentina
• Zweibrücken, Germany - since 1959

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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages that are done by you: . And most important, please do not attempt further to re-remove by edit warring like , 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.

• 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages: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/???? 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . If it wasn't it wouldn't be called decoration .Gnevin (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on

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. "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, I do not see how such generic images would be used. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the example in this section above. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. In case there is WP:consensus that NO Flagicons should be ever used in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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[REDACTED] of decorations, you will just rid[REDACTED] of qualified participants. This is the whole reason why the co-founder of[REDACTED] started the Citizendium. There is not a single image on[REDACTED] 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

Template:RFCmedia

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 Misplaced Pages pages. So what are you saying exactly?, that the current guideline justifies the removal of all icons from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Support all basic principles laid out by Oicumayberight. While I agree with the distracting (example) given in the guideline, the only problem with it is that it's made by a dilettante, by someone who should never ever touch anything that has more than 2 colors to it. Other than that, once again the guideline is even in conflict with well established Category:Flag templates and there is no need to address someones possible colorblindness with a[REDACTED] guideline. A simple "avoid doing this (example) and that (example) would do under MOS:FLAG, also adding "seek help from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Graphic design in case in doubt" might be useful.--Termer (talk) 04:56, 19 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I't 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)

Small

A issue has been raised over the defination of small, while I don't want to get dragged into Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is the 💕 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." - 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 Misplaced Pages article space in general. And since this is never going to change, someone who doesn't want to see any icons in Misplaced Pages 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 and . While removal of Icons such as and 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?

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"
4. 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages: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? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 () was different than the flag for the 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.--2008Olympian 22:38, 27 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

1. Edward Tufte. "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information". Graphics Press, 2001. ISBN 0961392142. Chapters 5 and 6 in particular.