Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 29 June 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 4 – May 2008 – Sept 2008 Archive 5 – Sept 2008 – Dec 2008 Archive 6 – Jan 09

Wording of "Help the reader rather than decorate"

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

My suggestion would be to append one of the following texts

1. An icon can be considered decorative if it's removal would not affect the users understanding of the topic
2. An icon can be considered decorative if it's does not convey any relevant additional information about the topic

2 would be my preference Gnevin (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

K, I've scanned this page, but I haven't found a description of what exactly is misleading about the wording. I don't object to adding “merely” – but if this suggestion is “to start,” then how else would you improve it?

To me decoration means ornamentation, the opposite of function. An element is purely decorative if it serves no function at all, so it's a no-brainer that it should be avoided. But I'm not clear on how something we would add can both decorate and help. Maybe I like flowers and you like hearts, for example, but clearly we shouldn't change the square blue list bullets to either hearts or flowers. (Arguably the “book” background graphic in the monobook design is decoration, but it also serves to add texture to the page, visually differentiate its parts, and refer to the theme of encyclopedia.) In an encyclopedia, we should avoid any decoration. A good design is both functional and attractive, without resorting to any decoration at all. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 15:02 z

If any user doesn't find relevant meaning in any picture on wikipedia, that user could say that there's no function other than decorating. It wouldn't necessarily be true, it could just mean that that particular user is unfamiliar with the association or lacks pictorial literacy. The guide does nothing to help in determining meaning in this case. Therefore, the guide is useless in helping someone determine if an image is purely decorative.

Now let's just say for example someone does find communicated meaning but also thinks that the picture is pretty, that would be an example of a picture that is both communicative and decorative. There is no definition that says decorative and communication is mutually exclusive. That's only being erroneously implied here on[REDACTED] in this guide and in the Edward Tufte article. There is no sources for this false dichotomy. I included a source to the contrary of what's being implied from Edward Tufte's own writings . Oicumayberight (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Decorative is not the same as attractive. Attractiveness is an inherent quality of an image or ornament. Decorating is an activity, and refers to someone using the image or ornament. If the element's intent is only to decorate, then it is decorative (regardless of whether it is pretty or ugly).

Also keep in mind that we are not talking about illustrative photos or diagrams, but symbolic icons – by their nature they serve a specific function: to represent something. In the case of a flag, it's a sovereign country. If a word represents that country, then adding a flag to the word is redundant. The icon differs from the word in that it is less generally useful: how many readers recognize this symbol: ? But any reader can intepret “Guinea-Bissau”. Finally, the icon differs from the word in that it draws they reader's eye from across the page – it is bolder than bold, and stands out in the text more than the top-level heading. If it falls within prose or a textual list, it is generally counter-productive.

(This also demonstrates why the Ultimate Fighting Championship example cited elsewhere is fallacious. Icons are sed symbolically, not illustratively. They aren't used in a sports article to illustrate the appearance of the English flag for example.

I don't think the yardstick for inclusion is that one individual finds an icon useful or not. It is having an intended purpose which is clearly articulated and supported by consensus. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 17:47 z

1. "Attractive" can be interpreted as "decorative" and that's where suspicions get out of hand. It just encourages an anti-graphic design witch hunt.
2. In some cases mentioned in this talk page, we are talking about illustrative generic images, it doesn't have to be photos or a diagram to illustrate.
3. If text were always sufficient for communicating meaning, then no images other than diagrams wouldn't be needed anywhere on wikipedia. Text could describe everything.
4. If consensus is what determines what is decorative, then theres no need for this guide to even make the attempt. It's just WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing in the guideline is “icons . . . misused as decoration” and “use of images for decorative purposes.” Do you really think that is easily confused with “don't use attractive images?”

What is an illustrative generic image? Can you point out icons used for illustration or description rather than as, um, icons? —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z

Very well stated. To add to this, I think there is long-standing consensus for the use of flag icons in several specific situations, such as in lists or tables of items that have close association with individual nations (such as lists of countries, or international sport results), and the intended purpose of those icons is to make it easier for the reader to pick out items of interest by adding visual cues to those lists of data. There is no consensus for the use of flag icons to tag individual instances of country names, such as birth/death locations or nationalities, as found in biographical infoboxes. The purpose of this guideline is to describe those instances of consensus, and that is a Good Thing™. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. There are a lot of newbie editors who neither write nor read the encyclopedia, and they get a sense of satisfaction from adding shiny things to everything. An alphabetized list of countries is made worse by adding flags. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that last comment, but the fact that so many "list of countries" articles have had these icons on them for such a long time leads one to believe that consensus exists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They're easy to ignore at first. I didn't pay them much attention in the tank and AFV articles I watch, until I noticed that a stereotypical “Operators” section had eventually crept into almost every one, and was being shoehorned into places it didn't belong. This kind of stereotyped format is harmful, because without constant attention, and without guidelines to clearly discourage it, it spreads through positive feedback. Eventually we had multiple redundant lists that looked like the United Nations (rather “United Colours of Benneton” on the ass of someone's jeans), main article sections were devoted to 1-item “lists” with icons to help read them, items which didn't belong started to pad out the lists with “potential operators”, and when there was nothing, editors started collecting rumours and recreating the stereotypical sections out of thin air. This is all about people having fun with icon templates, and nothing else, and if it keeps up then Misplaced Pages will look like MySpace.

Many experienced editors were against this in part or in whole, but few were interested in taking the time to constantly fight it. I finally decided the only way to stem the tide was to remove every indefensible use of icon pictures in my watched articles, and keep it up. I've tried to work towards more concrete guidelines specific to the Military History WikiProject, but too many editors refused to compromise even a bit, so anything goes, and I can only make progress if I keep pushing hard and rely on these editors' low attention spans. I'm also in the middle of a ridiculous “discussion” which has led to mediation at Talk:Leopard tank. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:37 z

Comment both wordings suggested by Gnevin say that all flag-icons could be considered informative and/or convey relevant additional information and it can affect users understanding of the topic. Please see the post by --2008Olympianchitchat 22:38, 27 January 2009 above. People who are not familiar with country flags always are going to think that those icons are educational. Therefore, my suggestion is to return to MOS:FLAG that clearly spells it out, flag-icons should not be used within article text. There never is going to be any agreement on WP:ICONDECORATION in general, since what is decorative vs. what is "additional information" depends on ones personal understanding of things and therefore it is open to interpretations. At the time when MOS:FLAG has always spelled out it clearly, what kind of use of "ICONDECORATION" is not desired on Misplaced Pages.--Termer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but now I'm even more confused. Which four points is Olympian referring to (I see four or five lists preceding his post)? What is meant by “returning to MOS:FLAG” – restoring some text which has been removed?

And what is there to disagree about? If one can articulate clearly what information some icon images contribute to an article on a topic, then they are functional and justified. But if their only function in an article about ultimate fighting is to educate about the flag of England or to “splash in some colour”, then they are not contributing to that article. Seriously, if a reader is not interested in reading about the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or if the writing is bad, then decorating it with little non-content pictures will not make him read the article, and there is no reason to try to make him read it. People refer to encyclopedia articles with specific goals in mind, and most of them are not to learn to recognize the English flag. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 15:57 z

Comment I think that Misplaced Pages:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature is an existing guideline that better conveys the idea of "help rather than decorate" without using those specific unclear words, at least for many of the non-flag images that have been discussed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're admitting that those words are vague. The word "decorative" could easily be replaced with "distracting" or "irrelevant" throughout this guide, because that's the real problem you are after here. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist on treating this discussion as a combative exercise? I'm not "admitting" anything. This isn't a confessional, nor is anybody on trial. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "decorate" is precisely the correct word. Why would Misplaced Pages need more decoration? It's already cluttered up with enough junk. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Personally, I think the existing wording is just fine. I don't see what all the hubbub is about. Can anyone show a compelling example of this wording being used to cause an actual problem? So far all the examples I've seen have been people removing icons that had no business being in the articles to being with. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The multimedia article was an example of removing images for suspicion of decoration, despite the fact that there was text showing what the images meant in the article. Even though, consensus ruled in favor of removing them, the reasons for removal were various and not aided by this guide. 16 translations of the article include the same icons with translated text , evidence of meaning. The image were unfairly put on trial by this guide with the mean spirit of calling "pretty" and "childish" pictures. That same mean spirit became viral in that discussion. The ends never justified the means in that case. The article were never proven to be exclusively decorative. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion in not a rerun of the multimedia discussion will you please stop flogging that particular dead donkey. Their was a massive con against does icon and even without this MOS they would of been removed. We've set to see a compelling example and in fact I don't think we willGnevin (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He asked for an example of this wording being used to cause an actual problem, I gave one. What are you afraid of? It's just a discussion. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This example is an "actual problem" only in your mind. I can't speak for Kaldari, but I suspect that this example is one instance where icons "had no business being in the article to begin with". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem? Sure if you want to ignore the fact that 16 other translators still use the exact same icons. You can't even find 16 users who agree that the icons weren't helpful. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So your best example of this guide is being a problem is a discussion where every user but you agreed the icons where not needed . Every user who took part in the discussion agreed the icons should go. Gnevin (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The more you cling to that consensus, the more you prove that the guide was not helpful. And if you're so sure that the icons were not needed, how do you explain the 16 translations that use the same icons without insulting the translators? Try removing the same icons from those 16 other articles. See how helpful they are. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"had no business being in the article to begin with" is a personal opinion at best. Well, lets spell it out what is this "disagreement" all about? Should Misplaced Pages look like DOS or Mac OS X or something in the middle? In case there are strong evidence that the community supports one or another way to go about it, this discussion and WP:ICONDECORATION has a meaning to it. In case not, again, I suggest limiting this guideline to WP:MOSFLAG.--Termer (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good God, they're articles, not graphical user interfaces! Encyclopedia articles are written, edited, illustrated, and read. Static dingbats don't play a role in these activities. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 19:56 z

Who has been talking about articles? It would be silly to use any icons in article text. This discussion has always been about templates etc. and that's exactly what those are, user interfaces for navigation etc. --Termer (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This guideline is about any use of icon images in articles, whether they be in prose or not. They are virtually always inserted using a template like {{flagicon}}, but that is irrelevant. I mostly see them misused in bulleted lists and infobox tables, in the articles I watch.

I can't think of any case where icons are used as navigation links – can you link to some examples? —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 22:29 z

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

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

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

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

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

So if your saying that Icons should never be used, then you need a policy (not a guide) to support that. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They are used acceptably sometimes, in a very small minority of cases in the articles I watch. And I would be willing to compromise somewhat on a concrete guideline, but there are always holdouts. So I would be happy with a guideline that discouraged some bad uses. But in the meantime, there is no clear guidance and no consensus, so I work against the epidemic. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:43 z

In it's current state, this is anything but a concrete guideline. But thanks for helping make the case that it is WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Or users could put .flagicon {display: none;} into their monobook.css. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And how would that improve the encyclopaedia for users as a whole? Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't. But it would help users who don't want to see any flag icons whatsoever, despite any consensus for certain instances that are acceptable to most of the community. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it is my intention to improve the encyclopaedia not turn a blind eye too the problem Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you – this is not about using blinders to spare my delicate sensibilities, this is about preventing this very worthwhile project from coming to look like fucking MySpace. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:45 z

What's wrong with the way myspace looks? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this, WP:ICONDECORATION is under discussion , yet Gnevin thinks it would be appropriate to use the questioned guideline to justify his edits by massively removing images, not even icons from film templates. . This has gone beyond reason...--Termer (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That was agreed with the reliant project and User:Dr._Blofeld . So I don't see a problem Gnevin (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that just strait out lie. your claims at Wikiproject film where you justified your random removals with the policies here brought me to this talk page in the first place. Where it has become evident that you have written yourself a guideline to justify your actions. And User:Dr._Blofeld did revert your edits.--Termer (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's not , but that is an out right personal attack. User:Dr._Blofeld reverted the discussed discussed removal of the clapper icons but even removed the random maps and people icons himself Discussion Gnevin (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's amazing, anybody clicking on the diff can see that User:Dr._Blofeld has simply reverted your edit . and even has told you Rubbish. I will keep reverting you.--Termer (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find the edit summary was simplify to reflect a "nationwide" industry per gvin So your talking total bollocks Gnevin (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Termer, I was referring to editing articles. Sure there are icons on the Main Page, but that is not an article, and we don't put an array of Sister-Project links in articles. I don't know which other example you're referring to. —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 17:34 z

Hi Michael, pick any template, those have used icons for navigation aid for ages until the ICONDECORATON was created lately.--Termer (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

“Any template?” Seriously, can you give me one example so I'll know what you mean? —Michael Z. 2009-02-07 18:01 z

If Termer is referring to the composite used in the multimedia article, I guess you could say that it was the effect of a navigation template, accept that it was only used in the one article. It did contain hypertext links to the separate articles. I'm not going to debate the effectiveness of that example because Gnevin will just call it beating a dead horse and cling to the consensus of about 5 local users, while ignoring the fact that 16 international translators used the exact same composition and that nothing in this guide justified removing it. One of the petty complaints in that debate was that the actual pictures didn't link to the articles, only the text. I guess that would be the only difference between that example and the Misplaced Pages's sister projects example in the main page. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that example.

“Petty complaint?” How are these navigation links if the links don't navigate to anything?! I don't care if 1,000 editors (“translators?”) have turned a simple sentence – “Multimedia contains a combination of content forms: text, audio, still Images, animation, video, interactivity” – into a set of prominent navigation links to the icon image pages!. That doesn't make it any less godawful (nor the even still worse use of icons in the next two article sections, which present the out-of-context phrases “Linear Non-Linear” and “Presentation Interactive”). —Michael Z. 2009-02-08 18:21 z

This is not an attempt to debate whether or not those icons should or shouldn't have been removed. It's an example, showing how the way those icons were used wasn't much different from the way icons are used in the WP:Main_Page#Misplaced Pages's sister projects section. You probably think those are godawful too. You've made it quite clear that you don't like icons.

I said "petty", but I should have said "minor," meaning that the navigation from the actual pictures was a minor problem that could have been easily fixed with an image map, instead of removing the icons. And there was navigation from the hyperlinked text below the icons.

Furthermore, There was nothing out of context about the text used below any of the icons because the subject matter was discussed in the article. You could debate whether the associations made between the text and the other icons were accurate, but that would also be subjective, because 4 of the 16 translators found meaning in those icons too. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No man, these are different from the Main Page, where 1) important projects are associated with the logos which represent them, and 2) the logos actually are GUI elements, which link to the projects – representation, branding, and links all work together. And we're discussing specific examples, so you can't just brush off the details saying in effect it's exactly like the Main Page except these aren't logos, and the links don't work. The fact isn't “petty” or “minor” when it contributes to a failed implementation.

And the others on the page are even worse from the point of view of design and conveying meaning. The Major characteristics section discusses many, but only two are symbolized by icons, which have no obvious relationship to the title. Icons should convey meaning at a glance, but you have to read the whole section before you can tell where these fall into what is written here. Finally, the design is such that in my browser “Recorded Streaming” are closer to each other than they are to the words and icons above, so it didn't even make any sense the first couple of times I looked at it. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 00:44 z

I didn't say "it's exactly like the Main Page". I said it "wasn't much different from the way icons are used" on the main page. I'm not here looking for consensus to put those icons back in the article. At this point, it won't matter why you think the article is better off without the icons. The facts:

1. Putting an image map hyperlink on the actual images would have been a minor fix as an alternative to removing them for those who were expecting navigation to articles from the actual images and not just the hypertext.
2. Nothing in this guide justified removing those icons. Which is what we are debating here.
3. If consensus got the icons removed, it only makes the case for why the guide is not needed.

None of your criticism has anything to do with the wording of this guide. 16 translators, thought that the icons worked well enough to include them in their article. That proves that all reasons for removing icons were subjective. And the wording of this guide doesn't make it any more objective. It's just a poor alternative to policy, which you practically admitted yourself by saying it could be summed up in one sentence “don't use icons.” Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

The example would take up more space if it were a sortable table. It would have columns and rows with a bunch of unused space. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The flags in the Adidas list are not used as GUI elements, but merely as slightly annoying and less useful substitutes for abbreviations, or for the subdivision of the lists by subheadings. It's also not WP:ACCESSible, because the flags have incorrect alt text. In a text-only browser part of the page looks like this:

    Africa

        * Flag of Egypt El Zamalek
        * Flag of Morocco FUS Rabat
        * Flag of Morocco Hassania Agadir
        * Flag of Morocco IZK Khemisset
        * Flag of Morocco Jeunesse Massira
        * Flag of Morocco Kawkab Marrakech
        * Flag of Morocco Wydad
        * Flag of Tunisia Étoile Sportive du Sahel
        * Flag of South Africa Orlando Pirates FC
        * Flag of South Africa Camps Bay FC

I can think of two or three ways to improve this by eliminating the flags.

If you insist on considering them GUI elements, then they are poorly used here. The same flag links to File:Flag of Germany.svg in one place on the page, but to Germany in another. Also, why does any one article or list need 91 links to the article United States? —Michael Z.

Arbitrary section break

I favour this wording of the section:

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

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

I have debated with editors who hold the opposite view: preferring to remove icons from lists and tables in the article, but to add one in such an infobox to identify the origin of the article's subject at a glance. Since an icon functions in such an attention-grabbing way, this may be defensible as a useful application.

If the problem is only print layout, then that makes this a technical problem, not necessarily an unacceptable application.

I'm not against your proposal; just saying that this may not necessarily be the easiest example to get consensus on.

I have seen no evidence that icons necessarily improve the readability of long lists, so I am against stating this. I have only seen specific applications where they may help discern particular qualities in lists. For example, in simple alphabetized lists they are worse than useless. But they might help quantify a third or fourth-order attribute of a mixed list (such as the proportion of silver medal winners who came from a country over a time period, or in a range of events). —Michael Z. 2009-02-08 17:37 z

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

Their was no edit war, do you even understand what an edit war is . I posted i was going to remove the icons, people agreed, 2 weeks later I started to remove stuff and users objected.I discussed further. No edit war. Gnevin (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the last time before I give up: this is yet again another circle, anybody who would take their time and look at the history of Template:Americanfilmlist can see that your edits get reverted. You have run another round of your removals on February 5 on the Category: Film country list templates justifying your actions with WP:ICONDECORATION that has been under discussion here since January 12, when I took the discussion away from WikiProject film to this talk page here . As things have not moved an inch since, and you keep using WP:ICONDECORATION to justify your removals meanwhile, this discussion unlike you say "I discussed further" has been unfortunately meaningless. The bottom line, I haven't seen any consensus on this talk page while the supposed guideline gets edited boldly. And since this has given me an answer to my original question posted at Wikiproject film , my job is done here.--Termer (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The expansion of the guide

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

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

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

Suggested Rewording

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

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

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

It sounds good, except I would change "purely" to "exclusively" and change "rule" to "premise." It's good that you mentioned distraction because that's the real problem we are trying to solve, not decoration. You could probably replace the word "decoration" with "distraction" throughout the guide and it would be less subjective. The elephant in the room is that some advocates for the guide are against decoration for personal taste reasons other than distraction.

BTW, the wording in that section is not the only problem with this guide. Some advocates for this guide have tried to downplay the problems with WP:CREEP and excessive subjectivity by removing the dispute tags and archiving the discussions before disputes were resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Oicumayberight attempt to neuter this proposal ,with out actively agreeing with Cop663 , and I bang my head repeatedly against the wall that the buzz word of WP:CREEP has been throw out yet again Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I partially agreed with Cop 663. What problems do you have with my suggested modification with the wording?

And as for WP:CREEP, it's not just a buzz word or there wouldn't be an essay describing what it means. CREEP is a pattern that this guide reeks of. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not interested in the WP:CREEP issue, I'm just try to clarify the meaning of the paragraph. Whether or not the sentiments in the paragraph are good is a different question ... I just think that if it IS going to be there, it should at least make sense. Does anyone have any objections with the wording as it now stands? Cop 663 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you. Those words were indeed redundant. Cop 663 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not redundant to say "exclusively decorative." The dictionary defines decorative as "That which adorns, enriches, or beautifies; something added by way of embellishment; ornament" . That means to some if not most, the meaning of the word "decorative" simply means to add beauty, regardless of any other function. To criminalize the word on[REDACTED] would falsely imply that beauty and meaningful communication are mutually exclusive. Therefore the word exclusive wouldn't hurt and would only serve to clarify meaning. Gnevin is obviously against such clarification because he prefers the heavy handed approach. There is plenty of evidence that he is using this guide as an alternative to policy and prefers that it is seen as a strict policy, not a guide. So it's obviously not any redundancy in the word "exclusively" that he is concerned about. He is instead worried about softening any fake authority that may come from this guide due to his bias against any possible proper use of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is the best I've seen so far, but perhaps not far enough. It should be noted that I too prefer the clear approach (call it "heavy handed if you want). I don't see what would be wrong if Gnevin was indeed against the use of icons. Their value is indeed limited, and the "possible proper use" of icons is clearly a matter of debate. I am wary of any wording change that expands the scope for their usage. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are for a "clear approach," then you should be for the clarification of "exclusively decorative." Discouraging proper use of icons is not just heavy handed. It's dishonest. Improper use of icons is a matter of debate as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Reads like a champ.--2008Olympian 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which version do you support? I think it was fine until Gnevin remove the word "exclusively" despite the ambiguity of using the word "decorative" by itself and the false dichotomy it implies. We don't want to discourage proper use of icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would tighten this up quite a bit. I think that guidelines need to be simple.

Icons should not be added for decorative purposes. Avoid icons that do not provide additional information about the subject of the article. Exceptions to this section may be found below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008Olympian (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you are using words like "should not" instead of "do not." That sounds more like something you'd expect from a guide, not a policy. Tightening it up is also a good idea. However, we can be even less vague and still use less words. We know that decoration is not a problem in and of itself. Distraction is the real problem. I don't have anything against something that is exclusively decorative, but I do see how that practice could easily be overused to the point of it being distracting. So I'm willing to go with the obvious consensus that exclusively decorative icons should be discouraged. However, if an icon serves another useful purpose, but just so happens to look pretty in the process, that could be wrongfully discouraged by this guide. That would be discouraging proper use of icons. Anyone could wrongfully remove those icons because they were pretty regardless of any additional usefulness. So I suggest this simple wording:

Icons that serve no purpose other than to decorate should be avoided and removed if found. Anyone who wishes to improve or keep the icons should prove that they serve an encyclopedic purpose other than decoration according to WP:CON.

The other problem is that it would be impossible to list all exceptions of proper use, or list all examples of improper use in this guide, because there is too much subjective gray area. It's like trying to define pornography. There was an attempt to define pornography in the United States Supreme Court. The only thing the supreme court judge could say is that "I'll know it when I see it." Oicumayberight (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

decoration is not a problem in and of itself. Disagree, if you want decorations by a copy of home owner today Gnevin (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are basically saying that beauty is a problem in and of itself. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No I don't care if it's pretty icon or ugly icon once its encyclopaedic and expresses something better than words its not decorative Gnevin (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I removed the last bit makes no sense, we are building the CON here . No need to say the guideline has CON, its a guideline which implies it has CON Gnevin (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would change "does not provide extra information about the subject of the article" to "may not provide extra information about the subject of the article." If the article was about a flag or the flag was used as a pictorial way of contrasting information, those would be examples of extra information. Make that small change and I'm OK with the wording of that part of the section. I still have a problem with the title of that section and the WP:CREEP is beside the point. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Cop 663 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Help the reader rather than merely decorate

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

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

Support. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support.Cop 663 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Kransky (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors who wish to add or keep icons

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

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

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

I think it' over kill Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gnevin. Consensus is an implied policy and doesn't have to be repeated here, especially with the obtuse "WP:CON" link. The sentence is also imprecise—which clause does "according to WP:CON" apply to? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's that bias again, leading me to believe that the advocates for this guide just want a false badge of authority. Almost everything in this guide is covered or implied by some other[REDACTED] guide or policy with the exception of the WP:CREEP. As for CON it applies to keeping icons in articles despite this guide. But I guess those looking for a false badge of authority wouldn't want that fact mentioned in a guide design to substitute for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's that lame catchphrase again: "false badge of authority". It doesn't apply in the slightest to my comments, so please desist. Focus on the content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content. This guide lacks real guidance. The maintenance tag only calls for removal, as if discussion and WP:CON is not an option. Based on your premise that mention of WP:CON in this guide need not be mentioned because it's implied, there is nothing in this guide that isn't implied or covered by another guide or policy. So your reason to exclude mention of WP:CON would invalidate almost everything in this guide as necessary. If you just want to discourage use of icons whether proper or not, that's a bias. If you don't want this guide to actually guide someone in a dispute over icons, that would be using this so-called guide as a wp:policy, and yes, a false badge of authority. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the maintenance tag (I presume you mean {{Icon-issues}}), it is no different from most of the other dozens of cleanup templates. With respect to the lack of explicit mention of our consensus policy, it is no different from most of the other style guidelines. I hope you wouldn't suggest that WP:Manual of Style (text formatting), for instance, is flawed for the same reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Manual of Style (text formatting) is not as subjective as this guide and also isn't filled with words that disguise it as a policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I object. It's unnecessarily authoritarian in tone, and it's already implied by the previous sentences. Keep it simple, keep it friendly.Cop 663 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous sentence is only a criteria for inclusion. It's not a guiding instruction for how to proceed if an icon has been mistakenly removed. This guide lacks instruction for proper use of icons, making it biased. If I have to scrutinize every word of this guide for non-neutral hypocrisy, it will be on the admin notice board. And how is the word "should" any more authoritarian than the 15 times the phrase "do not" is uttered in this guide? Oicumayberight (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha. You see, I thought it read like more like a warning than a guide. Perhaps the reason it sounds authoritarian is that you don't "prove" things by consensus, you "agree" to them, i.e. it's a collaborative process. So, a more positive way of phrasing it may be "Editors who wish to add icons may need to develop a consensus that they serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration." Cop 663 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is not the same as proof. Consensus is the potential result of proof. But you are correct in pointing out that the word "prove" could be misleading, especially since it's impossible to prove a negative. Add the phrase "or keep" icons after the word "add" in your last rewording and we are in total agreement. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible.Cop 663 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So it would read:

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

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

Yes , I don't see the point. Your the one always talking about WP:CREEP and this suggestion is just creep. User's don't need to develop con to add icons , they can be bold and just add them. Consensus would be required to keep icons but that's the same as any content dispute . Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh surprise! "You don't see the point." There's that feigned incomprehension again despite the fact that I spelled out the point of what the line was for.

So you are implying that it's only WP:CREEP if it could work in favor of keeping icons. But anything that "Strongly" discourages the use of icons seems to be acceptable to you. Talk about a double standard. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not implying that at all. I just don't see the need to add something that we all already know about . Its a core policy of wiki which we don't need to spell out Gnevin (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in mentioning it, and it could only help as a reminder in this guide. It also is a guiding instruction other than "remove icons" which you seem to be so in favor of. This guide needs to mediate and guide through disputes, not instigate disputes. So if it's fair game to suggest removing icons, it's also fair game to suggest forming consensus to keep icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've nothing to say too your catchphrases . If you wish to discuss the content then do so with out pulling these meaning less catchphrases out in every discussion . Gnevin (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a dirty trick, putting a separator in the middle of the discussion as if it was a whole new discussion right after the part where another user agreed with me . I'm surprised you didn't archive it like you archived the evidence of CREEP. We wouldn't want to draw attention to the fact that someone else agrees that my stated reason for the proposed inclusion "sounds sensible" if you are accusing me of only making "meaningless catchphrases." Nice attempt to hide consensus that didn't go your way. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would an apology for your above personal attackt before I request an Admin to deal with your shocking lack of good faith and total incivility Gnevin (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

So we have 3 users that support it with the new wording and one user against it. Any other comments? Oicumayberight (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been on holidays for the last week and am now in catch up mode in both wiki and real life. I would like to read thru all this and comment in the next day or so. --Merbabu (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• One of the problems with this MOS that we have been discussing is that it can't be specific enough. Whether or not an icon is legible at any given small size can only be determined on a case-by-case basis with consensus. The example you show is not legible at that small size, but I don't see that as a problem in and of itself. If it's distracting to readers, then that's a real problem. That could be determined by consensus as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer to see the use of any image on a navbox title bar to be discouraged, whether it is illegible or not. I think that larger images inside a navbox, such as the seal inside {{US Presidents}}, are much more helpful to illustrate the navigation topic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• It should be removed along with the US Flag. At that size it's little more than a blur Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• It wouldn't have to be completely legible, just clearly distinguishable, but at that size it is not. One clear symbol next to the title could serve for identification, but framing it with two is excessive. And yes, this is a judgment call: the guideline doesn't get that specific. —Michael Z. 2009-02-11 16:24 z

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

I think “main space” already covers it, but whatever. (Better: adj. main-space.) —Michael Z. 2009-02-11 16:50 z

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

MMA related articles

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

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

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

I really don't know much about MMA, but there is precedent within other sports. For example, tennis and golf players (especially) have a strong association with their nationalities, and you see this frequently in outside media, including reliable sources we use on Misplaced Pages. The PGA TOUR website show little flag icons next to each player's name, and it seems you can't watch a Federer–Nadal match on television without the Swiss and Spanish flags being shown every time the score is shown! Therefore, the corresponding Misplaced Pages pages for those sports can reliably add flag icons without controversy. With respect to MMA then, I think the salient question is how closely aligned are the individual fighters with their nationalities? Is that something you usually see in the reliable sources used for match results, or is it something added only by Misplaced Pages editors? If it is the latter, we've got a problem. I took a quick look at http://www.ufc.com and not only do I not see any flags, but I don't even see a listing of nationality per fighter (only height, weight, and record). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Watching MMA events myself, mostly UFC, the most a fighter has in association with a flag is that before they start to fight, it is announced what state/country they are fighting out of, which is what is generally placed in articles, but confusion arises since none of these articles specify a country next to the flag name and they don't specify what it means, as sometimes the nationality, place of birth and place they are representing are all different. Regardless of what flag or meaning is put in there, the issue of whether it should include flags at all remains to be the problem. — Moe ε 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely why they should be removed from MMA articles, then. Since the choice of flag meaning is made by the Misplaced Pages editor instead of by outside sources, and that choice is not explained anywhere inside any of those articles (as footnotes, perhaps), those articles would certainly fail several Misplaced Pages policies. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Well if it was that easy, I would have removed the various violations already. I already explained that this is not a international sporting event to the folks at WikiProject MMA, but they revert me and insist that it is indeed one. — Moe ε 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• 0 featured articles
• 1 featured list - List of UFC champions (which also has excessive flag icons)
• 0 A-class articles
• 1 Good article - Brock Lesnar - former professional wrestler (which is what the majority of the content discusses) turned MMA fighter (current UFC Heavyweight Champion) - also include excessive flag icons
• 25 B-class articles
• 55 C-class articles
• 370 Start-class articles
• 485 stubs
• 8 lists
• 93 Unassessed articles

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

As it is the newest sport in existence, that it has this many articles already says something. As it attracts more fans, it will expand it's selection of featured articles. Considering that Misplaced Pages as a whole has only one in 1,130 featured articles, the "projects article quality" is the same as the encyclopedia as a whole, and another article is pending review as I write.--2008Olympian 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Newest sport in existence? The UFC promotion itself may be new and even the current rules might be somewhat new, but your project covers all of MMA. MMA as an organized sport has been around since the early 1900s. Other sports that resembled modern day MMA originate back in the day of Olympic Games in B.C. times. It's hardly a new sport; it's just recently gotten more attention than it has previously.

Anyways, your statement is inherently false as MMA doesn't represent the entire encyclopedia only a small portion of it, and this small portion in particular isn't doing too well. Only two articles out of the 1,000+ articles you cover (and there are more than likely articles that need to be created) are considered featured or even 'good'. Either the system in which the articles are being rated is failing (which I highly doubt) or the way mixed martial arts articles are written has to be changed. And with the majority of the articles covering mixed martial arts seems to be event pages clogged up with flag icons or biographies with icons in the infoboxes and results tables, there seems to be a correlation between the lack of quality and flag icon use. — Moe ε 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My statement is that the feature article rate for MMA articles is the same as that if the encyclopedia as a whole, which is demonstrably true from the numbers cited above. A lot of the MMA articles do need to have their ratings upgraded. One of the larger articles is currently undergoing a feature review, and despite a lot of work that has been suggested, not one reviewer has mentioned anything about the flags. The shortcomings in the MMA articles are mostly a product of difficulty in finding reliable sources, as MMA, despite huge popularity and ratings and PPV buys that only in the last two years have exceeded boxing and pro wrestling, does not yet receive the coverage by major media outlets that other sports enjoy. It is laughable to think that is has anything to do with the flags.--2008Olympian 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The similarities between the projects total and the Misplaced Pages total is flawed, as there isn't a WikiProject to collectively edit every article on Misplaced Pages, thus making the actual number skewed. If you wanted to make an actual comparison, you would put statistics up against another WikiProject. And I'm glad no one mentioned the flag issue on the article that is under review, because I will gladly mention the issue there myself..

Lastly, I would like a source that says MMA surpassed pro wrestling or boxing in "the last two years", because the last major event for MMA and professional wrestling which came within 6 days of each other (UFC 94 and Royal Rumble (2009) respectively) it appears that Royal Rumble had a larger attendance than UFC 94. :) — Moe ε 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I need to give you a source for something that is not really germane to anything we are discussing. But since you seem to need to argue everything some else says, whether or not it relates to the larger discussion, here you go: "The debate has been ongoing ever since UFC’s pay-per view numbers from 2006 were released. The UFC broke the pay-per-view industry’s all-time records for a single year of business, generating over $222,766,000 in revenue during 2006, surpassing WWE and boxing." My point above was that even if the MMA Project has not had many feature articles, you have not shown that is has anything to do with flag use. You confuse a correlation with causation, a pretty common mistake.--2008Olympian 03:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation?

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

Well for this particular situation, there are more than just the manual of style in discussion, because the use of flag icons have no verifiability, which is a policy. No you really can't violate a guideline, maybe 'violate' shouldn't have been said, but you can have a total lack of regard for guidelines. Guidelines are there for a reason.. — Moe ε 19:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding good advice without any justification is close enough to violating a guideline. Just click through a few of those articles and you'll see that good taste is also feeling remorseful and desperately in need of a shower. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 19:59 z

If the advice is being disregarded, then perhaps it's being seen as subjective. One can neither make an objective argument for or against a subjective opinion. Maybe the advice just isn't good enough. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But then, perhaps putting a picture of a flag next to each of ten occurrences of “United States” in a table is just useless (an objectively defined quality). We see this again and again in these articles – an editor habitually and systematically adding flags for no purpose except to reinforce a stereotyped usage he's seen elsewhere. This is how icon pictures reproduce, by using uncreative editors as their host. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 21:22 z

WP:USEFUL or useless needs qualifiers to be objective. Even with discussion, not finding a use isn't the same thing as useless. You'd have to prove a negative. Asking the editor who included the flags would be a better indication of intended use. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What ever about the discussion above about using the national flag for these sports men, there is zero need for them at the locations Gnevin (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The point is you need a reliable reference that used flag icons that proves that the use is verifiable. The nationality is of course verifiable with Sherdog. What you fail to provide is a reference that has flag icons that associates a fighter with a country. Flags should be added to an article where there are undeniably a link between the athlete and the country and there is nothing to say that there is. And thank you for cleverly pointing to the website that doesn't have flag icons and avoiding the websites that actually do have them. — Moe ε 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I admit that most Olympic websites use flag icons, they are the genesis of this notion of use, but some do not, and the point is that whether they do has nothing to do with what we do here. You are adding requirements for flag use that are not in the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline does it state that flag use has to be shown elsewhere before flags can be used in Misplaced Pages.--2008Olympian 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not on this page, but all of Misplaced Pages is required to be verifiable, which is policy. The flag usage have not been sourced, as I stated below. — Moe ε 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Sourcing

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

This is getting into interesting territory. The integrity of our article content is assured by the requirement to source all facts. But of course there is no such requirement for the typography and graphic design of articles. This is mostly okay, because we imitate the design of encyclopedias and other academic publications, which tend to be minimalist and purely functional.

But we also report sports scores. Encyclopedias don't do this, so we imitate the TV. Too bad, because neither encyclopedias nor websites are TV.

Maybe there should be a requirement that our design innovations should follow a specific published precedent. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 06:19 z

As long as the "requirement" was a policy and not merely acting as policy in the guise of a guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian, your comment is the reason why sourcing for a flag is needed. You cite Sherdog nationality as a source and yet you use fighting out of as the source on the UFC website. Sometimes they are the same country, but mostly, those are two very different things. The source you provide has to accurately detail a country representation to the fighter. Country representation is not nationality or place of birth. The closest you have is fighting out of and even that is inaccurate, as some "fight out of" the United States but carry the Mexican flag around. If you have a reliable source for country representation (like the Olympics, Golf, etc.) to a fighter and the source accurately details it then having the flags in the articles may have some legitimate use. So far, you haven't provided that. — Moe ε 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And to further solidify that "tale of the tape" from UFC isn't reliable: I was watching UFC 95 the other day. Interesting to note the only time they use flags is during the tale of the tape segment and what did it say?: Born with a flag on both sides representing each fighters place of birth. Please read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death for furthur information on that.. the UFC 95 article is reeking this, by the way. — Moe ε 05:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed change

This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.

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

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

They can aid navigation in alphabetically ordered lists as well if the alphabetical order is not the same as the icon order. Nothing wrong with having multiple organization schemes in one list, alphabetical and pictorial. You can't spell out everything that's going to work or not work without attempting to make this a long lesson in graphic design principles.

Any adjective such as "long", "small", or unspecific quantifier such as "too many" will always be subjective, not objective. All the clever wording in the world won't change that. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Owe surprise ,you've any objection . Any B always following A is a lot clearer too navigate. Why would anyone use flags to find a country when they know that USA is near the bottom . Gnevin (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking case-by-case or in general? Supposing someone had a list of Olympic athletes from different countries with the last names in alphabetical order. Any flag could appear anywhere on that list depending on that persons last name. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean not ordered by country changed

They can aid navigation in lists or tables of information not ordered alphabetically by country as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon.Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's less subjective, but not completely true. Some people recognize colorful pictures faster than they recognize monochrome letters or words. So even if they were ordered by country, some people would be aided by the pictures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing subjective words like "long" from this guide. Any removal of subjectivity in the guide is an improvement. But until this guide can objectively explain what is wrong with icons, it's just a poor substitution for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You've already attempted to get blood from that stone. We are not discussing that issue. The point is not about recognizing monochrome over colour , it about knowing I'm at A I want W most user will jump a bit say now I'm at T a little more down Gnevin (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me what I can and can't discuss on a talk page? Your bossy tone and antagonistic sarcasm will not change the facts that this guide is subjective and a poor substitute for policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NO I'm telling you what I will and will not discuss Gnevin (talk)

You don't need to tell me what you won't discuss. Just excuse yourself from the discussion and you won't be discussing it. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen instances where the alphabetical ordering by country is not obvious. I've seen edit warring over whether The Bahamas is listed under "T" or "B". Or should Chinese Taipei be under "C" or "T"? I disagree with this restrictive change. There is nothing wrong with grey areas in this guideline, as long as common sense is used. And you can't legislate common sense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with grey areas in this guideline as long as it is being seen as a guideline and not a policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep harping on that? The very top of the page says "This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style..." What else do you want? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I keep harping on that is because of the language in the guide and how it's being used. It's not written like a guide. It's written like a policy. And those who know better often fail to clarify when it's referred to as policy. If I have to compile a list of all the times this guideline is referred to as a policy, it will be for the administrator's notice board. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports infoboxes - a contradiction?

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

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

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

The As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes. is correct . Removed the other stuffGnevin (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Beautiful example

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

Interesting that the vast majority of examples and applications of this guide is for flags. The rest of the examples are of crests and logos. Why it was expanded to include generic icons makes absolutely no sense. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors also misuse those types of images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't very many examples of misusing generic icons, and no examples in this guide. There certainly wasn't enough examples to warrant the expansion of this guide to include them. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate use

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

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

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

On consensus (and apologies if this is stating the basics to experienced users), if no-one reverts a new addition then one can assume one has consensus - until it changes. If someone does revert, then that's a sign there's no consensus yet. WP:BOLD works because the ability to revert is there. WP:BOLD encourages "BOLD" actions - it's how the encyclopedia gets better - but doesn't say you can't revert a "BOLD" action. But of course, explanation of reason for revert would be most helpful here. --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the WP:BOLD guide. I only mentioned it because boldness shouldn't be the only reason to revert my edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)

Of course - hence my apologies in advance. I wasn't so sure about your changes either to be honest, but was hoping someone might articulate my concerns better first. --Merbabu (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because of the current controversy regarding this guideline. Normally just be bold but right now it is smarter to first discuss it and get consensus. Garion96 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As per Talk:Multimedia/Archive_2_Icon_debate/RFC ,generic icons have no place on Misplaced Pages Gnevin (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you brought it up and not me, I guess it isn't a dead horse anymore. That case was a classic example of how this guide is being misused and why it's vague WP:CREEP. Nothing in this guide justified the removal of icons in that article, and yet this guide was used to put those icons on trial unfairly. If we were to just randomly put all content on[REDACTED] under scrutiny, 3/4ths of it would disappear, and not for good reason, but instead weak consensus and personal taste. Those icons were fine in the article for 2 years until someone with no prior edit history or no sign of interest in the subject misused the guide to put the icons on trial. And in the end, nothing in the guide helped the discussion. But I guess it was good that it brought all the lack of professionalism and WP:CREEP in this guide to my attention.

1. That talk was about 1 article, not the entire wikipedia. The only thing that talk proved was that the 5 users among the local consensus lacked the same pictorial literacy that 16 translators who are still using the exact same icons had.
2. Sighting "as per" without saying what's relevant is what WP:PERNOM identifies as a "non-argument."
3. The talk you sighted is neither a guide nor a policy.
4. If there was any thing wrong with those icons, it only proved why the rare problems with generic icons should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
5. If generic icons had no place on wikipedia, you wouldn't see them in maintenance tags, and stub templates.
6. There's no clear distinction between a generic icon and a illustration. "Small" isn't even a clear distinction because it's a relative term.

Oicumayberight (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

'Interesting' is subjective. That is the fundamental problem. That is why it would be necessary to build a consensus on the article's talk page that the Rubik's Cube icon is not mere decoration. It's a tough world. I looked at the deleted icons that you noted on the English multimedia article and I thought 'whatever', but although I don't really care one way or the other about them specifically, I can see that if they stayed, people would start adding similar icons to anything that moves, cluttering up every page with little pictures that could be argued to 'interest people in the subject'. That's what happened with the flags, and it would happen with icons too. That's why I think we have to be hardasses on this matter and make people work to prove that their little pictures have an actual point. Cop 663 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk about subjectivity, this guide can't even define "icon" in an objective way, let alone address problems with icons objectively.

Regarding the Rubix cube, it's not just that it's interesting. It's that it's an application of abstract algebra . That's called illustration of a concept, not just decoration. And even if it were decoration, it wouldn't be a real problem until a majority of users found it distracting. There's no complaint in that talk page.

Generic icons are mainly used in maintenance templates more than articles, and without supporting text. Nobody is complaining or removing those icons. Condemning their usage in articles and not everywhere else is a double standard.

Misplaced Pages has been around for 8 years. The guide was expanded to include generic icons less then a year ago. That means generic icons have been allowed for at least 7 years. Why wasn't there a mass explosion of meaningless icons cluttering up every page in the seven years prior? That's what WP:CREEP identifies as a perceived problem, and not an actual problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would assume the reason Misplaced Pages article space isn't cluttered with icons of the guide you're describing is that people don't like them and they get nipped in the bud early on. I remember that when I first started using Misplaced Pages about 4 or 5 years ago, there was a discussion ongoing about whether to add icons to pages, illustrating their subject area (geography, astronomy, literature, etc.). It got voted down, as I recall. I can't remember the details but it might be interesting to dig up that debate.Cop 663 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, then this guide is not needed, at least not for generic icons. The problem is self-correcting. But even if it weren't a self-correcting problem, this guide would not be the way to correct it. The problem is too vague and subjective to be addressed by a guide. The heavy-handed approach is just a poor substitution for wp:policy, and not the way guides are supposed to be used. Once the guide attempted to address perceived problems with generic icons, it became even more vague and subjective. Now there is no clear distinction between icon and illustration or any image for that matter.

Frankly, I believe the reason why you don't see excessive use of generic icons in articles is because most[REDACTED] editors know they aren't creative enough to use them without making the articles uglier. Many would have trouble just finding the right icon and don't have the skills to make their own. Many wouldn't even know how to convert or resize clip-art without making it pixelated or distorted. The amateurs would rather use larger photos to decorate instead. For this reason, any concern for excessive decoration should be part of the WP:Images guideline instead of the MOSICON because it's broader in scope. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious section about inventing new icons

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

You're right that it should probably be reworded. What do you suggest? Cop 663 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Change new too original and problem is solved Gnevin (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not even close to a solution. The whole section almost contradicts the exceptions in Misplaced Pages:OR#Original_images. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's tough for me to reword it, because the problem is with the expansion in the role of this guide, not just with that section. Once it started targeting generic icons, it opened up a whole new can of worms. It bit off way more than it could chew in the way of defining what was clearly just a perceived problem. I think the best solution would be to return this guide back to being about non-generic group/status-identity-serving icons. That could be done by modifying the top text to read:

For the purposes of this guideline, icons refers to any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals, flags and similar graphics, unless otherwise stated.

The next best thing would be to delete that section until any salvageable points could be reworded.

If the section is reworded, it should be more about forbidding the perverting of existing icons instead of inventing new ones. The example shown in the section isn't really and "invention." It's a perverted fusing of well-known icons. If I were to reword it, it would be something like this:

Section title: Don't distort well-known icons. Section would read: Do not modify or use non-generic icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Misplaced Pages:OR#Original images for further clarification. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Last one sounds perfectly fine. However, just out of interest, could you give a specific example of a user-created icon that is encyclopedically useful? Cop 663 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is one. The wording is not to protect such an icon, but to protect just any "small" illustration from being labeled an "icon" and unfair removal of the illustration based on this guide. I'm sure there are plenty of small illustrations on wikipedia, but I don't have time to research which ones are user-created. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any examples of the kind of small illustrations you're thinking about? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just having trouble envisaging the problem. Cop 663 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The icon in the Template:Video Games is an example of a generic icon that could be seen as either an icon or an illustration of elements from a video game. It may not have been developed by a[REDACTED] user, but it just as easily could have been. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Database management system article has an illustration. Looks less like an icon than the previous example, but has no caption and could be considered small because small is relative. This guide could go on forever trying to spell out the specifics of what is or isn't an icon. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And as predicted, it was deleted less than 3 hours after it was shown here as an example. How predictable was that? Which is why I changed the link here. Nobody complained about it. But it was deleted anyway. Talk about a perceived problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, that removal was wrong. There is a perfectly valid use for images (icons, flags, whatever) within navboxes, whether they are vertical, such as {{Video Games}}, or horizontal, such as {{Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)}}. They serve a navigational aid to visually enforce the linkage between related articles ("This is an article in the series of X"). Of course, those images should be closely associated to the topic; the use of the scales of justice in {{Criminal law}}, for example, is logical to me, but the use of a flag in {{Airlines of Brazil}}, for example, is only indirectly related and could be replaced. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. That service as a navigational aid keeps the icon from being purely decorative, therefore it meets the guideline.--2008Olympian 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no actual icon for Video games and just because some felt the need to pick a random icon for it is decoration. Ask your self if removing the icons meant any lost of information. The anwser is a clear no. They serve a navigational aid to visually enforce the linkage between related articles is their any evidence of this ? Don't the words This is an article in the series of X clearly show they are part of a series ? Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If one doesn't see the loss of information, it may be due to a lack of pictorial literacy on the one's part. Or it could be just unfamiliarity with the subject, which would be fine if the observer wasn't the target audience. If I applied the same negative proof reasoning to something as complex as the quantum mechanics article, I could simply delete most of the text on the grounds that I don't understand it, even after I read it. Is it fair to say that the text is "meaningless" because I didn't understand the meaning? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The icon for the video gamepad (File:Gamepad.svg) is used time and time again throughout the entirety of the video games wikiproject. Anyone familiar with the project (or familiar with video games over the last twenty years) should be able to understand what it represents. It's used in 90% of the project's templates, including stub templates. SharkD (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It didn't only serve as a navigational aid. It was a simplistic identifier of a subject matter at a glance. It illustrated what a video game may consist of on a generic rather than a precise level. If it had been on a precise level (like a screen capture of an actual game), it may have been too specific, such as being seen as about just one particular genre of video games. But the Silhouetted collage of the games controller combined with the obviously not screen captured image of a popular old video game made it symbolic of all video games. It's the same reason why corporate logos use the same simplistic symbolic style. They don't want to be associated with just one product or service. But that's all subjective. It all depends on familiarity with the subject matter (target audience) and ones pictorial literacy skills. It definitely wasn't distracting, which is the real problem targeted by this MOS guide. The way I see it, no complaint, no problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I like User:Chzz/fps but that's a picture so it outside the scoop of this MOS, I don't think Generic Icons should be used pretty much at all . Gnevin (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Is the "Ireland rugby" flag the flag of an official organization that can be cited? If not, the clover illustrates nothing about rugby or Ireland, so would be an example of what not to do. As for the film icon, the clapperboard illustrates a tool of the film industry and includes, not modifies the flags. As long as the film icons don't change the portion of the flag that's recognizable as the American flag, I don't see a problem. The WP:OI is the policy for original images whether or not they are considered icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That policy is more intended to prevent distortion of facts or introduction of opinion where there otherwise wasn't any before. I.e. someone has an opinion regarding a series of facts, and uses the image to push a particular interpretation or conclusion based on the argument. I don't see how it applies in this case. SharkD (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Tell us how you feel about it first. It looks like a flag. Is it modified from an official version? I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the clover is not associated with Ireland. St._Patrick's Day#Wearing of green goes into some detail about this. SharkD (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The clover is associated with the holiday St. Patrick's Day. That holiday is associated, with Ireland. But the clover itself does not illustrate Ireland in the same way that a map or a flag of Ireland illustrates Ireland. I thought that the Irish holiday like St. Patrick's Day was to Ireland what an American holiday like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was to America. The way the clover was being used to represent an organization, it wasn't illustrating, but instead, branding. And if it wasn't an official flag like this one, it misrepresents that organization with original research. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Branding vs illustrating

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

Removing tags before dispute is resolved

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

I seriously object. There is no expiration date on disputes. Refusal to concede or rebut is not a resolution. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're holding the guideline hostage until you get your way? That isn't ok and could be seen as disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. You've raised some points, had them discussed, and failed (as far as I can see) to gain a consensus for your change. At this point the tags come down, unless there continues to be a reason to display them. This I am failing to see. --John (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is holding this guide hostage. If this guide were fair and objective, then it wouldn't be any less effective with the tags. This is not about getting my way. It's about doing what is right. Removing tags is not working towards a resolution and is disruptive. I consider the instruction WP:CREEP in this guide in violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. There is no statute of limitations on addressing this violation. Tags bringing attention to that fact is supported by policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And whose opinion is it that there is a problem with this guideline? Other than yours obviously. --John (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Termer, Dr. Blofeld, MChew and 2008Olympian have all noted problems with this guide on this talk page, just this year. I'm sure I could find more in the archives and other talk pages related to this guide. Even a supporter of this guide Cop 663 admitted that the section (that you removed the dubious tag from) should be reworded. Whether or not you recognize it, this guide has problems that won't be fixed by denial. Even if I was the only person, that knew of it's problems, those problems would still exist. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative wording then and we can see if it gains consensus. Having the tag there long term is not a viable option. Also, the NPOV tag is for article space, not guidelines. --John (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I made suggestions for additions and rewording. If you are in support of them, then we can include them. Furthermore, I know of no such restriction on the use of NPOV tags. Since any user can edit a guide, edits to the guide can lack neutrality as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But you failed to gain consensus for your additions. I agree with John, these tags have been here for months and nothing is happening. That indicates they should be removed. Garion96 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of replies is not a failure to gain consensus. And no consensus is needed to dispute. There is no expiration date on maintenance or dispute tags. WP:CONSENSUS applies to including or removing content. There is no rule that says I must have consensus to dispute the inclusion or removal of content. You didn't even bother to dispute or get consensus when you removed my content. But then you claimed lack of consensus as your reason to remove it without disputing it. That was in effect, removing content for no reason. You didn't even give it time to see if anyone else would dispute it. By your reasoning, I could remove half of the content in this guide for lack of consensus when it was included.

There is an expiration date on the RFC though. Which is about two weeks oversue. You might also want to read WP:BRD. You were bold in your edit, I removed it because 1: I don't agree 2: considering the heated discussion which was then going on this page it really should be discussed first. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are for 30 days according to WP:RFC. And then they are automatically removed from the list.

1. You didn't even state that you didn't agree at the time you reverted it. And even if you did disagree, you should have stated reasons other than WP:DONTLIKEIT.
2. I'm familiar with WP:BRD and it seems that it is been applied with a double standard here. There were plenty of bold edits by you-know-who that went unreverted when I was disputing this guide late last year.

Oicumayberight (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no disputing the fact that there is a dispute. All it takes is one user to have a dispute. Disputing is not including or removing content. Disputing is discussing. See WP:POLLING. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Now if there was a strong consensus that any particular content should be included or removed, I would respect that consensus. But this guide was expanded by less than a half dozen users with a weak consensus when nobody else was looking. And this guide is now being used and misinterpreted as policy on numerous other[REDACTED] articles as a way around both WP:CONSENSUS and having to develop a real WP:POLICY, which would require a stronger consensus. That's Gaming the system. The WP:CREEP was a violation of the WP:BURO policy by attempting to use a guide as a policy. The expansion of this guide should have been given more time to develop a stronger consensus even by the admission of some who supported the expansion. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please propose your specific changes below this, so I can decide if I support them. If there is no consensus to adopt changes, by default we retain the current consensus. If this turns out to be the case we would take the tags down and you could pursue dispute resolution if you so desired. --John (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made the proposals in this talk page sections regarding the tags and the sections are linked from those tags. There is no need to repeat them. The tags are part of the dispute resolution process. Removing them before the dispute is resolved is just obstruction of the dispute resolution process. The RFC hasn't even expired yet. And there is no expiration on the dispute. Disputes are resolved with discussion and agreements between the disputing parties, mediation, or arbitration. Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. And there is nothing in the dispute resolution policy that instructs or allows you to remove tags before the dispute is resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please assume WP:AGF. The purpose of the tags is to invite other fresh users to consider if there is a problem and add to the discussion. It's not about getting my way either. It's about improving this guide. If you don't think that the guide needs improving, then the dispute tags should be of no concern to you. The tags are for those who may wish to add to the discussion or improve the guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended by a specific part of the advice I gave you. I have struck the phrase you took exception to. However I stand by the overall thrust of my remarks. Merbabu is right too; you cannot restore these tags indefinitely and it really looks like a month and more of campaigning on your part has failed to generate a consensus for the changes you wished to make. Just how long do you propose we leave the tags in place? --John (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Until the dispute is resolved, just like it says on the tag, however long it takes. And resolution doesn't mean "getting my way." If I were pushing for just "my way," I would be devoting all my efforts towards removing this guide. But instead I'm working to improve it. Resolution means discussion and agreements between the disputing parties, mediation, or arbitration. Just as Cop 663 helped us reach an agreement on the non-neutral wording of "help the reader rather than decorate," we can reach agreements on the other issues as well if we stick to discussing the content and don't make it ad hominem. My disputes to this guide haven't been fruitless. Cop 663 was able to address that particular problem that I pointed out with this guide reasonably and objectively. Surely anyone else who disagrees with me can do the same. The fact that I'm working to improve the guide and not reporting the WP:CREEP to the WP:administrator's notice board shows that I'm willing to compromise for the sake of improving this guide. I'd like to see it actually guide, rather than act as the poor substitute for policy that it is. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Until the dispute is resolved"??? How in your mind should it be resolved and how would that not be "my way or tag", as it appears to be now. "As long as it takes" sounds like my way or tag. --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A resolved dispute is not "my way", but instead "wikipedia's way." We won't know for sure what a resolution will look like until a resolution is achieved. And if you were to discuss the content of the guide reasonably and objectively instead of making it about just me trying to get "my way," the resolution may even go "your way." Oicumayberight (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but that isn't going to be acceptable. For you to be the sole editor who feels there is a problem here and who wishes to make certain changes, and for you to be the sole arbiter of when the dispute is resolved, is not ok. Since you are so fond of these acronyms and tags, let's call it a WP:COI. For Merbabu to say it seems to be about you getting your way is not an ad hominem; as that is how it seems to me also. I like your suggestion about taking this to another venue. Let's do just that. --John (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were the sole editor who feels there is a problem, that wouldn't disprove a problem. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. A resolution can be achieve without arbitration as was proved by Cop 663. But even if the Last resort of arbitration were necessary, I wouldn't be the arbitrator. Oicumayberight (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking my leave of this MOS/Wiki

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

that's a shame if it comes to dedicated editors removing themselves from discussions for those reasons. That suggests clear and sustained evidence of WP:CIVIL failure on this page. People should hve a good look at themselves. And gnevin should reconsider. --Merbabu (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that anyone finds this section relevant to improving this MOS, the civility issues have been addressed. Maybe taking a break and coming back with a fresh perspective will do this MOS some good. I've taken a few breaks from this issue myself, and it's helped. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Highway symbols

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

It was discussed here . It doesn't look like it was resolved either, probably because this guide is overly simplistic in defining the problem, let alone solving it. I doubt this guide could ever be objective and effective at solving this problem. Professional graphic design can't be summed up in a few paragraphs on a[REDACTED] MOS guide. This guide is overreaching in its attempt. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Deep down in it, I found: "Well, none of us are advocating including shields in the main running prose of articles. In fact, the road project's own guideline actively discourages including shields in the middle of paragraphs. Shields are typically only used in tables of intersections and in the infobox." That's pretty clear.--Ken Gallager (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that the discussion may have shed some light on this issue. I'm not denying that there is bad usage of icons on wikipedia. The reason why the issue has only been addressed in the talk page of this guide and not specifically in the main page is because there is no concrete objective rule. That's the problem with this guide, there can be no objective rules made simple by this guide that wouldn't discourage or exclude appropriate usage. And many supporters of this guide (including some editors) have shown a lack of consideration for appropriate usage. Some have even admitted their strongly biased belief that there is no possible appropriate usage of icons. The most that this guide has produced is weak consensus among like-minded users. That could have been just as easily achieved on a case-by-case basis. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More positve approach

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

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

Of course. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Exclusion of Appropriate use (continued)

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

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

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

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

Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 23 May 2009 (UTC).

I see we are still wp:polling instead of discussing content. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, especially not for developing policies and guidelines!

It's not so much an inclusion, but a careful exclusion for dubious reasons that makes that section a problem. The guide lacks constructive criticism of icon usage. A guide should be about what is appropriate as much as it is about what is inappropriate. This guide is being misused as policy instead of a guide. There's been several similar complaints by users other than myself who are probably too involved in other projects to comment. Even if it were only my desire to have it included, wikipedia is not a democracy. At least one person has the sense to see a problem with this guide. Even if nobody saw the problem, it wouldn't mean that the problem didn't exist or was irrelevant. Instructions are to be considered creep until proven otherwise.

The exclusion of important information biases the guide towards the dubious goal (admitted by several advocates of this guide) of using a heavy handed approach to address a perceived future problem with articles. Nobody has made an objective argument to exclude that information. At least I'm attempting to improve the guide instead of lobbying to have the guide deleted or archived for the bureaucracy that it currently is. So the tag is a mild way of addressing the problem with this guide. Guides are held to different standards than articles, because they affect numerous articles. I have enough education and experience in graphic design to prove that this guide is subjective in addressing what is obviously a graphic design principle. I'm giving this guide a chance to be improved before I report it as a bureaucracy.

So far the only reasons not to include mention of generic icons as illustrations and adding text as possible appropriate usage are:

1. One user has the opinion that generic icons have no place on[REDACTED] despite their wide usage in maintenance tags, portals, and key articles like the Mathematics article with no complaint.
2. Another user who doesn't disagree with the fact that generic icons can illustrate and be made clearer with text, thinks that mentioning the fact will encourage future misuse.

The first reason is pure bias. The second reason is pure speculation of a perceived future problem instead of an actual problem as noted in WP:CREEP. Making discouragement of a merely perceived problem part of a guide is violation of WP:BURO. Now can we discuss the content of the guide and not the administration? Can we discuss why the inclusion would or would not be appropriate based on any actual[REDACTED] policy? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't want to see any tag there, at least your change is "less bad". thanks --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with having a tag there? Oicumayberight (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because a tag should be only there temporarily. This tas has been there for months. And by looking at the past discussions mainly because one editor, you, disagrees with the section. Garion96 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't say remove after one month, two months, or "awhile." The tag says when the dispute is resolved. All it takes is one user to have a dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (

What's good about it? --Merbabu (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It draws attention to the fact that it's under dispute and invites newer users with fresh perspectives to the discussion, instead of the usual advocates for the guide who still refuse to discuss the content. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After a while, if it is only one editor in dissent from the consensus, it can begin to look like just disruption. --John (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reluctant to discuss? While I can fully understand why people might feel reluctant to engage further in this "discussion", there's 1000's of words devoted to it right here. Have you wondered *why* people are reluctant to discuss? I'm sure you have. As for drawing attention, it's got the attention of two people recently (myself and John) and our fresh perspective seems to be "the content is fine, remove the tag." What kind of perspective would you want to see before it is removed? --Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The kind of perspective I'd like to see is one that actually debates content instead of uses wp:polling as a substitute for discussion, tries to remove dispute tags before the dispute is resolved, or tries to make the discussion ad hominem. I wouldn't call John a fresh perspective since he's been editing this guide for over 2 years , well before the move to include generic icons. Also I wouldn't consider you a fresh or unbiased perspective because you've attempted to use the guide as policy to remove icons against the consensus in a discussion, which didn't seem to go your way.

As for the time frame, some articles and guides have taken years to resolve problems. Absence of discussion is not the same as reluctance to discuss. Many users are unaware of this guide and won't be made aware until it is referenced in a talk page or in the comments of an edit. The way it's been invoked without explanation, most users will think it's a settled policy and not a guide, and won't even bother to refer to it, which seems to be the dubious intended effect by some advocates of this guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of bad faith in one short post. I love how you go straight from telling us not to use ad hominem arguments to pointing out that Merbabu and I cannot possibly have a valid point of view as we have been involved in working on this guideline in the past. I suggest you either make some serious effort to generate a new consensus, or accept that you are in a minority and move on to something more useful. --John (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said your input was not valid. In fact, I haven't even seen much or any of your input in regards to the content of this guide to say whether or not it's valid. Instead, I've just seen your objections to me objecting.

I was asked why you specifically and Merbabus perspective's were not the fresh perspectives that I was looking for. I simply answered the question. It seems that you didn't object to the question being asked, but now you don't like the answer. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the example. A great example of accepting what I don't like and moving on. And not using WP:POLLING to disrupt. And you wonder why people don't want to discuss it anymore. --Merbabu (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is about polling to disrupt. WP:POLLING only disrupts discussion. I haven't been polling. I've been advocating discussion. Polling wouldn't have worked for you in that case either, because you didn't have the numbers. The guide was used as a substitution for policy like a badge of authority without sufficient justification in the explanation. But instead of the usual newbies mistaking it for policy, enough experienced users actually read the guide and realized that there wasn't much to justify the removal of the flags in that particular case.

Have you really moved on, or simply moved the dispute on to this talk page? Not that it would be wrong for you to move the dispute. If the flags were truly more harmful than helpful in that article, then this guide failed to prove that. That's a sign of a guide that needs improvement. Had this guide been improved and used as a real guide, it may have helped you make your case in that discussion. Anyone who wants to use this guide should be working to improve the content, not protect it from dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some in-text icons

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

Dubious example

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

Using abbreviations for countries in flagicons

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

Do you mean in addition to the flags that are already there? I don't understand why both are there. The flags are awful. I like the abbreviations, but not linked, please. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase: Should the abbreviations accompanying the flags should be spelled out in full, or are they fine as they are (linked)? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the above.. you have three indications of their nationality all in one little box. Doesn't that seem a bit of overkill? The flag, the abbreviation, AND they can click the name to discover. I'd lose the flag. The abbreviation is cool, but I'd delink it. I know I'm not answering your question so I'll just be quiet now. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For comparison purposes it may be worth noting that the standard template {{flag}} uses all those three means of identification, and any flag identification must be accompanied by at least one other form. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, comply with MOSFLAG in this case would be ditching the flags. Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually three-letter abbreviations do seem to comply with MOS. User:Bluap pointed me to the Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used section which says "for example {{flag|Japan}}, or its shorter variant {{flag|JPN}} should be used first". This seems to indicate three letter abbreviations are acceptable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All true, but this also falls under Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons)#Inappropriate use. Or do you really think the usage of 40 of the same English flag (plus a few other ones) makes this table more clear? Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Three-letter abbreviations would not comply with MOS; I think Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons)#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used should drop the {{flag|JPN}} from the recommendation. As raised in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One#Flags again, abbreviations are no better than flags alone. If acronyms are used, they should be fully spelled out on first use (complying with the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations), even though it is not explicitly stated).

As for ditching flags, I believe that if the article deals with an international event (i.e. the subject deals with an event that deals with concepts of nationalities), the use of flags in tables/lists are compliant with MOS.

• Hence, international sporting events qualify (e.g. Olympics, World Cup Football, World Ski Championships, F1 races, etc).
• Events that merely involve multiple nationalities playing together in a competition do not qualify (e.g. football leagues of any nation, NBA, etc).

Some scrutiny might also need to be paid to international events, for example, an article on an international match between two teams need not put the flag to each player name in a table. In the case brought up by Dabomb87—BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award—I agree with Garion96 that flags are not warranted; the award is given to British nationalities and does not deal with sub-nationalities (nor is there criticism or commentary that deals with it). Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change

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

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

It's not an exclusion of generic icons from WP:OI policy. It's an exclusion of generic icons from the statement "don't modify icons" from the WP:MOSICON guide. "Icon" is vague. "Small images" doesn't specify enough what is or isn't an icon. So any image on[REDACTED] can be considered an "icon." To say "don't modify icons" without making an exception for generic icons (like clipart for example) would be like saying " don't modify images. That would be prohibiting something as simple as changing the color of a clipart image. Guides shouldn't be prohibiting anything anyway. That's the job of policies. Trying to use this guide as a policy (especially when there is already a policy on WP:images) is WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see what your saying . The below maintains the exclusion but maintains the point about using all icons in a way that's not use outside wp

Do not modify non-generic icons or use icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Misplaced Pages:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag". 86.42.65.193 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Modify" and "use" are redundant. "Use" goes without saying. What would it matter if an icon is modified but not used? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not modify and use non-generic icons or use icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. See Misplaced Pages:OR#Original images for further clarification. One example of such a distortion is a bogus "North American flag".86.42.65.193 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are hinting at. You are trying to prohibit the use of allusive or abstract art illustrations on wikipedia. That goes beyond icon usage. I suggest you take the issue to WP:Images guide instead of MOSICON. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm trying to prevent people using abstract art in a way that is not proven outside WP as per WP:OI . Surely you've no issue with that 87.198.164.254 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What is abstract is a judgment call and cannot be a blanket determination by a guide. It should be done on a case-by-case basis using the article talk page.
2. "Not proven outside of WP" is not what WP:OI says. That would require negative proof. The policy states "as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Again, that is a judgment call as to whether or not a new image or a modification of an image is introducing an unpublished idea. If I show an original illustration of a cat in an article related to cats, whats the unpublished idea? It needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis using the article talk page. And removal would be based on WP:OI, not MOSICON. A "meaningless" icon wouldn't be introducing an unpublished idea if it were truly meaningless. You have to first know what the icon means before you can determine if the idea is unpublished. And the style of the illustration isn't necessarily an idea either. That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis as well.
3. MOSICON is not the right guide to discourage any abstractions that would introduce unpublished ideas. That is a matter of WP:policy, not a guide. The policy is clear in this matter and only needs to be referred to, not reworded by a guide that only deals with a specific type of image. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, If you read that discussion you would see that this is a continuation of that discussion. The location of your anonymous IP gives me reason to believe that you've already knew that and may have even been involved in that discussion. And you shouldn't delete comments from the talk page unless it's vandalism. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The part about "or use icons that illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" is a separate issue than what the section is dealing with. Although it's redundant to repeat instead of just refer to WP:OI, I don't have a problem with unpublished ideas being mention as a problem in a separate section. It just weakens the point of distorting well-known icons to address both issues in the same section.

You have to wonder what makes this guide any different from WP:image. It all depends on how you define icon and why you think icons are a potential unique problem on wikipeda. See the points I raised in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Branding vs illustrating. "Icon" is too vague of a word when dealing with these concerns. The editors who expanded this guide bit off more then they can chew in analyzing a professional graphic design problem. It's not as simple as "small images". This is what WP:BURO prohibits. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages failed proposals