Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia: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 articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

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 – Aug 2009 Archive 7 – Aug 2009 – Feb 2010 Archive 8 – Feb 2010 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Didn't there used to be a guideline here that said that icons (and other images) shouldn't be used in cases where text could easily perform the same job? I'm sure such a guideline exists on Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it any more. Is it possible it's part of another MOS page? – PeeJay 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It use to say words are clearer but can't find the rev Gnevin (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can users have a look at some of my edits such as [1] which User:Fry1989 says that I've Again you have a severe misunderstanding of that policy. Thanks Gnevin (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a misunderstanding of the policy, and having gone through your past edits where you continue to remove flags for YOUR perceived violation, there is another user who has also reverted your change stating you have a misunderstanding. That is in regards to the Template:United States topics, where you removed the US flag from the template, and User:Moxy reverted stating you misunderstand the policy MOSICON. There are now two users who do not believe you know what you're doing. Fry1989 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this is a guideline not a policy. I will not deny I've been revert in the past, however that vast majority of my edits have been accepted Gnevin (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not change the fact that two users, myself and Moxy, have concern over your understanding and application of the policy. Fry1989 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hense why I've asked others for an opinion. We will see Gnevin (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say, Gnevin, that you consider this MOS guideline to advocate the exclusion of flag icons? If not, in what circumstances do the guidelines recommend they could be used? Daicaregos (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This MoS is about the sensible usage of icons. Usage such as the infobox at Battle_of_France and Six_Nations_Championship#Trophies are appropriate to me as they help in navigation or add additional relevant information Gnevin (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is, therefore, completely subjective; 'sensible' to one editor may not necessarily be 'sensible' to all. Would you consider yourself to be one of the more hardline wing of the exclusionists as far as the use of icons is concerned? Perhaps you may consider withdrawing from an article if you (alone) find opposition from more than one editor? Daicaregos (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the terms hardline or exclusionists. Do I apply MOSICON a lot? Yes but in some cases to icon that perhaps others here would not remove. I've withdrawn from several articles where opposition has arisen, this is after all only a guideline . The issue I would like clarified is have I misunderstood the guideline and as such misapplied it. My contention is I haven't Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "over-applied" is a better term then. Fry1989 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, both versions [2] [3] of that navbox are horrendous. One is an unintelligible collection of acronyms and smaller-than-normal and non-aligned flag icons, and the other is a wall of text. Gack. Perhaps this is an instance where a category is vastly superior to a navbox? As for how this guideline is applicable, it clearly fails the suggestion to "Accompany flags with country names" and perhaps "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrwsc, regarding that template, I have no opinion over either version. My only contest was Gnevin's removal of the EU flag in the title section, despite relevance and consensus. How the rest of the template is aranged can be decided by the community outside of my inclusion. Fry1989 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daicaregos, the problem is that Gnevin seems to feel that any visual addition to a template is a vio, regardless of long-standing consensus or relevance. I can give dozens of examples where he has removed icons, whether it be a flag (as it most always is), or when he removed the red star from the Communism sidebar, just because he appears to believe these templates should be completely bare because of the MOSICON guideline. He removes them despite that they add to the template, rather then detract or over-saturate. Fry1989 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do they add. Just because you like it doesn't mean everyone else will Gnevin (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons. Direct relevance, longstanding consensus, and that it is a common format widely adopted on here in the majority of templates Wikipedia-wide. Fry1989 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dispute all three reasons. There is significantly stronger consensus for images to appear within the navbox, using the image= and/or imageleft= parameters, for example, rather than on the title bar. To verify this, I sampled 1,000,000 pages that transclude {{Navbox}} (one million was AWB's limit, even with the "no limits" plug-in available to administrators). There were 41,686 different navbox templates in this large sample. Of those, 1785 had tiny images in the title bar, or about 4.3%. But 10,750 templates had images inside the box, or 25.8%. That is a 6:1 ratio of preference for larger images within the navbox versus tiny images on the title bar. And that's precisely the approach that would be best with {{European People's Party}}. Ideally, we would have File:EPP logo.svg inside the navbox, since that image is directly relevant, but because it is non-free, we can't. Putting a tiny version of the European Union flag on the title bar is not the next-best thing, since that image is only tangentially relevant. The EU flag might be a directly relevant image for {{European Union topics}}, if someone wanted it there, but not for any random topic that happens to have "Europe" in the name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My input: This is a dog's breakfast. It look's like the dog ate pizza and vomitted it up. So that's appearances, and useability is not much better. It's extremely difficult and clunky to comprehend. The entities are not easily indentifiable by either the flags or the abbreivations. Start by removing the flags and probably the abbreviations too. The current version is both an improvement visually and for readability. It is however too big. I suggest wrapping text and considering separating the words using bullet points as in this template. Further, there should be no European Union flag in the header. It provides no encyclopaedic purpose and looks dicky and should accordingly be removed to be in accordance with the MOS. --Merbabu (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrwsc, if we were only talking about the EPP template, then yes, you would be right. But Gnevin has removed flags from templates where they are directly relevant, such as removing the US flag from a US template HERE, and another user reverted his change saying he misunderstood the application of the policy. That is what is at the heart of this discussion, not a single template, but the overall application by Gnevin of this policy where he alone feels it's a vio, despite the relevance and consensus. As I've said before, it appears to me that he feels ANY image is a vio, or a "wasteful unrequired decoration" if you will. I on the other hand, don't believe that's what the policy means. I believe it's for over-saturation and irrelevant images, not just to remove any and all images from templates because it's a "decoration". Fry1989 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of Gnevin's edits have been over-aggressive, perhaps, with respect to this MOS guideline, but he is correct much more often than not. And with respect to {{United States topics}}, I agree that a tiny icon in the title bar is not very helpful. If you want decorative images in that navbox, put a larger image or two (like the flag and maybe a map) within the navbox body, per the strongly preferred style. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, and long-standing consensus would suggest otherwise. Fry1989 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? See above. Long-standing consensus is that images are preferred inside navboxes instead of on the title bar. (Although, image-free navboxes are the norm, by far.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples that would disagree with you. Wht I mean by long-standing consensus is that when an image has been in place for a great time, then it clearly has been accepted by the community as it is. That is consensus. Fry1989 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are plenty of examples; I estimate there are 60,000 pages that feature navboxes with tiny images on their title bars. It might seem lame of me to bring up WP:Consensus can change, but there it is. In fact, this entire MOS section was written long after flag icons started sprouting up all over the place and several editors concerned about Wikipedia quality agreed to the guidelines here to make sure that only the "right" kind of usage was kept. Many pages have been brought into alignment with MOSICON, but clearly not 100%. The time it takes to complete this work does not provide an "anchor" to render certain pages exempt from the Manual of Style. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989 , will you please stop reverting my edits. Your contention that I misunderstood this MoS has been refuted by the editors here. Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated then that. There are users here who do feel you either misunderstand, mis-apply, or over-apply(whichever term you prefer) the guideline. Which is what it is, a guideline, not a absolute rule. Also, you have made some edits claiming that consensus has changed from where it once was. I'm sorry, but 2 people does not consensus make, as much as you may like. Fry1989 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Gnevin that needs to show that he's working within the MOS. He is. --Merbabu (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, he applies the guideline over-aggressively. Icons can be useful, fast navigators. Lighten up. Daicaregos (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, others are over-aggresive in their use. There is no evidence they aid navigation, and "lighten up" is a an even flimsier argument. --Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave my opinion (as requested). That is yours. And just to clarify: "lighten up" is a request, not an argument. Daicaregos (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I presumed it was OK to reply to your opinion. Silly me. But, if I may break the "no-reply rule" again, I see you have not provided evidence that they aid navigation - merely "opinion". OK then, I request no more "lighten up" requests. --Merbabu(talk) 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. MOSICON used to say it was acceptable to use them as icons were an aid to navigation. But it was removed. Guess who. Perhaps it should be re-instated. Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find some evidence its true and I will be more than happy to re-add it Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS WP:ICONDECORATION still has the navigation argument, the readers who scan argument was removed Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop having a running revert war over a bunch of icons on extensively used EN:WP Templates like Template:JewishPolishHistory. Civilization will not end if there are a few extra icons on Wikipedia pages. Icons on pages & templates are VERY useful when appropriately used. WP:MOSICON is a GUIDELINE. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the hyper bole is helpful here no one claimed civilization will end or that this is a major important issue in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps you would offer up your opinion on what is appropriate usage . Yes MOSICON is a guideline which mean you should offer up a decent reason for ignoring it not just WP:ILIKEIT Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my view. Some people like them, some people don't. However MOSICON is only a guideline. Gnevin is treating it like an absolute rule. Unless the images over-saturate or impede viewing and interaction with the templates, I would suggest they be left in. Especially when they're directly relevant, such as the red star being a symbol of socialism in that template, or the star of David being a symbol of the Jews in the Judaism template. And again, when it's been there for a significant time, that would suggest it's been accepted by the community as appropriate for the template. It is Gnevin who is over-reaching his bounds, and there are now 4 users who have either reverted or directly disagreed with his removals. Fry1989 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of wikipedia "rules" are actually guidelines. We all follow most of the MOS religiously without even thinking about it. MOSICON is very clear about icons - particularly flags, which provide no encyclopaedic content, and no evidenced (let alone proven) navigational assistance. Certainly nothing that cannot be provided by bullet points and/or good setting out. Flags and most other little icons are like "trivia" and "controversy" sections, and text without references - they were once thought to be helpful by some editors, but once wikipedia matured in the last few years, they are slowly but surely being deemed inappropriate and being removed. Let's face it, flags look like little bits of pizza pieces throughout articles.

There are some icons I think are OK - those are well-encapsulated and bordered within templates, rather than just thrown in because we can. Examples of "good" icon usage in my view are Template:JewishPolishHistory and Template:History of Indonesia, whereas poor icon usage examples are Template:World's_most_populous_metropolitan_areas and This. --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do the icons added to Template:JewishPolishHistory and Template:History of Indonesia add? They are loosely associated to the topic at best. It's like putting a Shamrock and Rugby ball on a template about Irish Rugby Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos add to the readability, comprehension, visual interest and professionalism of the template. The History of Indonesia is really nice - a country outline superimposed on a flag with two symbols of the country and a brief timeline on the bottom - visually interesting and informative. There is a reason why "a picture is worth a thousand words". Ajh1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2. Gnevin:) Some are saying you are over zealous with your interpretation of MOSICON. I am saying that generally I agree with you. These appear to be two examples when I don't agree with you. --Merbabu (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your saying, what I don't understand is what advantage you think having these icons has? Gnevin (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because YOU (and you alone in many cases) feel they don't add anything, doesn't make you right, nor does it give you th eright to impose your view(by repeatedly removing them) against those who disagree. That's why Template:JewishPolishHistory was put under protection. Because you repeatedly removed them, despite 4 people disagreeing. Several people here (myself included) mention consensus. Well, what is consensus worth when one person can be allowed to impose his personal opinion over otyhers without a discussion, or when there is a plurality who say he is wrong? Notice even Merbabu, who generally has agreed with you throughout this discusison, even disagrees and feels that the icons in that template are appropriate. Fry1989 (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Gnevin's defence, he's actually the only one here whose argument is backed up by wikipedia policy and guideline's. All other arguments are based on "I like" and (alleged) numbers of editors. And say what you want, this discussion shows that others are defending their positions just as aggressively as Gnevin. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSICON is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. My beef is with Gnevin's removal of the images from Template:JewishPolishHistory which have been in place for a period of time. I view the removal of the images as an arbitrary action to a stable template used by a number of articles in the subject area. You both were within a hair's breath of violating WP:3RR and probably would have violated it if I hadn't intervened and invoked WP:RPP. The template does not violate any of the aspects outlined in WP:MOSICON:

   * 1.1.2.1 Do not use icons in general article prose
   * 1.1.2.2 Encyclopaedic purpose
   * 1.1.2.3 Do not use too many icons
   * 1.1.2.4 Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope
   * 1.1.2.5 Do not distort icons
   * 1.1.2.6 Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas
   * 1.1.2.7 Remember accessibility for the visually impaired

Ajh1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the templates violate WP:ICONDECORATION but that's just me Gnevin (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any excuse to have your way and get them removed, isn't it. You tried MOSICON (that IS what you put in the edit summaries every time for that Jewish-Polish template), and now that's been shot down, you're trying ICONDECORATION. Fry1989 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fry, are they not both short cuts to the same page? --Merbabu (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still nowhere in those guidelines where icons are forbidden. Gnevin is using a hatchet on a job that needs a scalpel, and I am under the impression that he simply doesn't like icons anywhere, and believes all templates should be completely bare. Atleast that's what his actions would suggest. Fry1989 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki as a whole expressly forbids very few things for example WP:N is a guideline as is WP:RS. The point is if your ignoring this MoS it should be for a very good reason and I like it is not a very good reason. Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE(and I sincerely dare you to try and find it) have I reverted one of your changes, or inserted icons myself just because "I like it"? You'll never find it because I've never said that, nor has any of the other people who disagree with your removals. So let's just get that straight right now. Fry1989 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can see that you offered up is that , 1 that I misunderstood this MoS, this is not the case. So the only reason I can discern for your refusal to accept this guideline is that you like the icons. WP:ICONDECORATION is very clear Icons should not be added only because they look good Gnevin (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only myself, several people have an issue with your understanding or application of the guideline. You may still think you are right, but cleary that is in question. And also, nobody here has suggested to keep icons in "because it looks good". We have all citied direct relevance of the icons we either added or kept. If you want this discussion to go any further, you need to step up your argument, and make it factual, rather then based on your personal opinion, because right now your words look rather foolish. Fry1989 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct relevance isn't a vaild reason per [[User:Andrwsc] who put it far better than I could and secondly the only one in this entire discussion of people who have help craft this Guideline who think I've misunderstood is you. The facts are ICONDECORATION says icon shouldn't be added if the don't provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout. These flags don't provide useful additional information as the name of the country is in text beside it and not all blurry and they don't provide any navigational or layout help Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I have also contributed to the guideline. Daicaregos (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, are you saying I've misunderstood this Mos and if so how ? Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images vs. icons

(putting this in a new subsection; hopefully discussion will be more productive than above)

One potential failure of this guideline is that it doesn't define "icon" very well, especially with relation to other images. The hatnote says For the purposes of this guideline, icons are any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags, but "small" is a relative term. As a result of this incomplete definition, we have instances where clearly decorative images are being removed from navigation templates, citing this guideline. And we don't usually have a problem with "normal" images being used to decorate articles. Now, the WP:navigation templates essay does say Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative, and I mostly agree. I think that decorative images need to be directly relevant. But if they are, they shouldn't be removed strictly because they are decorative. As I discovered previously, about 25% of templates that use the {{navbox}} meta-template make use of the image= and/or imageleft= parameters, so this is clearly a desirable feature. The maps used in all US county templates (e.g. {{Clark County, Nevada}}) or the scales of justice in {{Criminal law}} (and many other law templates) are both effective decorations, I think. In the first instance, it is useful to locate the county within the state. In the second case, a well-known symbol is used to associate a series of articles together under a common umbrella. But I object to simply slapping a flag image in the navbox (or worse, a flag icon on the title bar) just because the template is tangentially related to the flag's region. That's the difficulty here, I suppose, is enforcing what may be a subjective decision, about what is "directly related" or not. But perhaps if we can make progress in describing that in the MoS, it might diffuse some of the arguments such as we have above. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me this is not about the defining what is and isn't an icon it's about the file being useful ,relevant and additional information . So in the case of {{Clark County, Nevada}}) it shows the user where the county is located in the state of Nevada,its size ,shape and boarders words simply would convey this information, however {{Criminal law}} would loose no additional information if I was to remove the scale , in fact it is distracting at least for me ,instead of seeing Criminal law Part of the common law series as the header I get some scales which make no sense until I read the title Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue, from my point of view, is that , if you think an icon shouldn't be part of a navbox, especially when it has been there for some time, you should bring your arguement to that navbox's talk page, not unilaterally remove it while citing this guideline. This guideline does not mandate anything (it's not policy) and "local consensus", for lack of a better term, is what determines the contents of a navbox. Given the relative frequency that images are used in navboxes, I don't see how this guideline can be seen as trumping that local consensus. (I believe that guidelines are often as subject to WP:CONLIMITED as any other project or article, as there are usually just a few regular contributors.) oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a discussion for each icon is too time consuming and the vast majority of my removal have not been revert which should than this guideline is widely and generally accepted . I generally remove the icon , point to here in the edit summary and if it's re-added with any attempt to justify it (aka not just undo and default message) I will leave it be. WP:RS and WP:N don't mandate anything but if you post an article about the local stray dog you better be sure you have WP:N establisted by WP:RS you can't just turn up at the AFD say I like it so it will stay Gnevin (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably haven't been reverted because they haven't been discovered. However, I bet if more people were paying attention, this conversation would have started long before now. As said, you don't have the right to unilaterally remove things without a discussion when there has been consensus for a long time that those things be included. It's rude, and you know it. That you say "it takes too long" suggests to me that you want these images gone right away, no matter what others thing or the guidelines that apply say. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. It's clear Gnevin that you have no interest in an actual argument or in being corrected where you have erred, but more in defending all your actions, even ones that are controversial. Fry1989 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin has been using this guide as a false badge of authority ever since he started it with the weak consensus of 6 like-minded editors who knew that it was way too bold [4] and over reaching WP:CREEP when it moved in to the territory of images. Wikipedia already has a policy regarding WP:Images. But he side-stepped it with this guide and has been treating it like policy ever since with the repeated use of the word "violation." The reason why he bypasses discussion on the article pages and sites this guide is because he's banking on the average user not knowing the difference between a policy and a guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzm snore ,try something new! Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice and try something new yourself. Everyone is on to your own little personal taste crusade against icons. Think about why your name keeps coming up whenever there's a complaint about misuse of the MOS. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try and make it about one editor, rather than the matter at hand. Ie, I'm sure you dont' need a link to the page of being civil. If you'd like to throw out the MOS, one doesn't do it by making it about Gnevin. Since you bring up personal taste, in what way is this not about your personal taste? The last things we need is rudeness. --Merbabu (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but there is only one editor who doesn't seem to care to open discussion on the article talk pages to see whether the icons mean anything or not. There's only one editor who's name keeps resurfacing in complaint after complaint from multiple users regarding careless removal of icons. Face the facts.

It's this simple. If an editor (such as Gnevin) suspects that the icon is decoration, he should raise the question of meaning other than decoration on the article talk page. If nobody can provide meaning other than decoration after a reasonable period of time depending on how often the page is edited, then he can say for certain that the icons are meaningless decoration. If he is not willing to wait for feed back, then it's obvious that he is removing icons out of personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to insist in making it about Gnevin's record of behaviour on this issue and not the matter at hand, then you need to take it to ANI. However, other involved editors', including the reporting editor, often find their own behaviour and previous input also put under the microscope.

Well, there's personal taste and personal taste, isn't there? Both are kind of a dead end. --Merbabu (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Gnevin's behavior alone that's the problem. It's Gnevins behaviour in conjunction with this WP:CREEP of a guide. You can't deal with one without dealing with the other. If someone were to take it to an administrator, then Gnevin would claim that he was just following the guide. But it's the guide that he expanded and skewed to justify his behavior. If you examine the guide, the ambiguity doesn't seem like a problem until you observe how Gnevin is applying it. If he wasn't both a major editor and the primary enforcer of this guide, it wouldn't be a problem. But instead he edits and applies the guide in the worst possible way. He brings out the worst in the guide. That's why approaching 3 years later, the same type of complaints from multiple users are coming to this talk page about the same issues and the same person. Gnevin's behavior and the problems with the subjectivity of this guide are intrinsically linked. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The question is, of course, what can be done to change it? Daicaregos (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. How do you know he's the primary enforcer of the guide? He might be one of the primary participants here (as you have been oicumayberight) but you couldn't possibly know across wikipedia. Funny, i thought the guide was fairly clearly. No flags, etc. Yet there's always discussion of exceptions. --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, Gnevin usually isn't too far away from a flag-related discussion. That's not a judgemental statement on the quality of his contributions: I've found myself agreeing with his position several times, and disagreeing several times. But I don't think the suggestion that he spends a fair proportion of time applying it to the letter is baseless. The follow-on accusations are in my view subjective. The one thing I would say is that while the ambiguity in this guideline is deliberate and reflective of a lack of consensus, it causes problems. While I'm not suggesting that this guideline should be scrapped, I do believe that (somehow) it should be written from scratch. —WFC— 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a rewrite. This time around, however, those drafting the rules must not be the same editors who subsequently police them. Daicaregos (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite would be an improvement. And I agree that the rule editors shouldn't be the rule enforcers. But I'm skeptical if it's possible to write parts of this guide objectively, especially with regards to generic images. Sometimes instruction creep can't be fixed. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure nonsense , this the way wiki works a user sees a problem, they write an essay or proposal, others agree it's a problem and expand it, others disagree and re-factor it , after a while people say hey this makes sense lets call it a guideline (or not as the case maybe) and the process of edits continues . Those interested in the subject are going to edit the guideline, they after all are the ones at the coalface and who often understand the problems the guideline is intended to address. Every essay, guideline and policy on wiki is applied both by those have have helped in it's creation and those that haven't. Disbarring editors who edit guidelines from applying the is one of worst ideas I've seen on wiki .

Also my head is getting super big , it's great to be talked about n all , but how about suggesting some changes to the guideline instead of bashing out the same old routine about it's all that big bad Gnevin's fault. I've no objections to a total rewrite but to me the guideline works and the only objections I ever see on this talkpage is I heart Icons this guideline is mean Gnevin (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, nobody is talking about "disbarring editors." We are talking about ethics. It's not a rule. It's advice. You obviously don't know the difference, which is why you treat this guide like a policy with your repeated use of the term "violation." This guide should also be seen as advice, not rules.

Second, the way you described the way wiki works is not always the best way. Even the founder and the paid wikipedia employees admit that it has it's problems. If my memory serves me correctly, a permanent paid staff member was hired by The Wikimedia Foundation specifically to address the very important problem of WP:BIAS. It's not necesarily true that those who are most willing to address the problem are the ones who understand it the most. In my professional communication design opinion, the ones who started this guide are biased against graphics and show no professional understanding of communication design and poor visual literacy. But I'm just one vote in the biased consensus that has shouted down my professional opinion. And before you invoke WP:EXPERT, I don't have time to teach everyone here everything they need to know to understand as much as they should to criticize graphics objectively.

Third, you and your biased anti-graphic advocates for this guide keep invoking WP:ILIKEIT as if it gives you permission to make a WP:DONTLIKEIT argument that is a stalemate at best. As some have mentioned here, it's not a stalemate if there is consensus on the article page. According to WP:CREEP, "editors involved at a policy page are not always an accurate sampling of the community at large—this is why instruction creep can persist. The lengthier and more complex instructions become, the harder it becomes to see if the community agrees with them, since fewer users will read and understand them." That means you shouldn't treat the guide as if it's some predetermined consensus that overrides article consensus. The consensus in this guide only applies to editing this guide, not other articles.

That's why I think generic images should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles. And there should be discussion about if the graphics have meaning. If a regular editor of that article can tell you specifically what a graphic means other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply. It's not a case of your word against theirs if you show your lack of visual literacy or play dumb by claiming "you don't see it." And if you "don't see meaning" of a graphic in an article you aren't a frequent editor of, that alone is not a reason to bring it up on the talk page of this guide. I suspect that's just your sneaky way of WP:CANVASSING to bring the dispute to the attention of your biased anti-graphic like-minded advocates of this guide to that article for a WP:POLL. It only should be mentioned on this talk page if it's a dispute with the guide. You should just move on and let the regular editors of that article or WP:Wikiproject decide if the claimed meaning of the graphics are valid or relevant. You can't prove that there's no meaning simply by making the argument from ignorance that "you don't see meaning" other than decoration or that you don't see additional meaning than what can be provided by text. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shit or get off the pot -> Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)/rewrite Gnevin (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite process has already started. It's starts with discussion of principles on the talk page and consensus building. Just telling people to "shit or get off the pot" is doing neither. Either you have an opinion of what's been said or you don't. If you disagree with any points made thus far, I suggest you make the case as to why you disagree. If you agree with any points made thus far, I suggest you show your support by stating so. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is you talking about me and repeating the same tired lines as before. Can you outline your principles in clear bullet points or better yet start editing the rewrite Gnevin (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See new section below "Rewrite consideration." Oicumayberight (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any talk of disallowing certain editors from any re-write should not be tolerated, particularly when that call is being made by someone who themselves have long fought for their own opposing views. Just stop it. -Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just stop it" yourself with the Straw man and red herring. Nobody is trying to force anyone or "disallow" anything. Learn the difference between suggestions and orders. The suggestion regarding ethics of the same people who edit this guide abstaining from "enforcing" were made by myself and Daicaregos. You can either take the suggestion or leave it. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no red herring and certainly no straw man - you both said it (or "suggested" it) as shown above. I trust I don't need to quote you. it's not up to me to take it or leave it anymore than it is up to you. On the other hand, maybe you could both also offer to abstain in your "suggestion"? --Merbabu (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your use of the word "disallow" as if some sort of forceful rule was being proposed. And do you have a problem with suggestions regarding ethics? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UT

OK, sounds good. You are not advocating anyone be prevented from contributing. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Considerations

1. The goals of the guide should be stated clearly, objectively, and thoroughly.
2. Subjectivity should be minimized throughout the guide.
3. Anything that is subject to interpretation should be noted as subjective in the guide so that followers of the guide aren't tempted to treat their own personal taste and judgment as objective or factual.
4. The wording of the guide should be unmistakeable as suggestions, not rules.
5. Advice should be written in the guide that editors of the guide abstain from removing icons, but instead tag articles for review that aren't in keeping with the guide. This will show how well the guide actually guides without being forceful. And the wording of the tag shouldn't imply that it's already been determined that the tagged icons are not in keeping with the guide.
6. If so much as one user can explain meaning of the images other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply. It should be considered subjective at that point and should be left up to the regular editors of that article or WP:Wikiproject to decide if the claimed meaning of the graphics are valid or relevant.
7. Generic images should be handled with more care than flags, official logos, and crests. They most likely serve a purpose to illustrate or elude to the article topic and are less likely to be used for mere decoration. This is where the Guide is overreaching IMO, because any image can be considered an icon, even a photograph.
8. It should be noted in the guide that text and images are not mutually exclusive. In fact, text and images often compliment each other and are not redundant. Having both can help make the meaning more universally understood despite language or cultural barriers.
9. Suggestions should be made in the guide to add text to images that are unclear in meaning or relevancy to the article rather than removing them.
10. A suggestion should be made to discuss only disputes with the guide on the guide talk page, not disputes with articles to avoid WP:CANVASSING.

Oicumayberight (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have one, very simple suggestion. Split this guideline. A guide on icons that applies to all icons except flags. And a second guide that specifically deals with flags. —WFC— 01:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of this idea. I think the flag guideline should never have been merged with the icon issues. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I don't see any need for a (presumably 100%) "re-write" as explained below:

1. Agreed but what are the goals?
2. Agreed. But who's the arbiter of subjectivity? No non-encyclopedic or decorative icons is pretty clear and objective.
3. Disagree, unless it can be proven that other significant and important parts of the MOS are purely suggestive. However, maybe it could be considered if it is clearly acknowledged that it doesn't mean one now has free rein to add or keep icons.
4. Disagree. That's just a recipe for argument and contradict point 2. It would be less weak an idea if it was clear that it applied equally to inclusion and exclusion of icons, but then what's the point of the guide. We are not about watering down the guide.
5. No. Unworkable. And supports the uncontested addition of icons. And why is the idea only applying those who want to remove icons?
6. No way. see above
7. Possibly. Needs more consideration and explanation. What's a "generic image" as opposed to an "image"? Is it different to an icon?
8. Only if it's very clear that this is images and not icons including flags, etc, etc.
9. Indeed, images must be captioned. Icons should probably not be there.
10. Not sure how this would work, but maybe.

--Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two users that suggest a rewrite; three if you count the user suggesting the split. Even Gnevin appears to be open to it by his opening a sandbox page.

Here's my counterpoints to your counterpoints:

1. The goal is to write the goals. And if we can't agree on the goals, then there's no consensus or justification for even having a guide.
2. Consensus (in the article page) is the arbiter of subjectivity. And "no non-encyclopedic or decorative icons" is neither clear nor objective. WP:DONTLIKEIT#Just unencyclopedic is a circular argument. And "decorative" is not a reason to remove. "Exclusively decorative" is.
3. It can be proven that other significant and important parts of the MOS are purely (not suggestive) subjective. Any part that is relative to the interpreter is subjective, even words like "small."
4. How is point #4 a recipe for argument? What you consider an argument may be a necessary dispute. How does it contradict point 2? Nobody said that it couldn't be made clear that it applied equally to inclusion and exclusion of icons. The point of the guide is to guide editors to either better use of images or better reasons to remove them other than personal taste. Your statement that "we are not about watering down the guide" just shows the forceful manner in which you intend to use this "guide" instead of actually guiding editors to acceptable solutions. Treating a guide like a policy is a recipe for argument as we've seen in the history of this talk page.
5. Don't just make opinionated statements that it's unworkable. Explain why it can't be done. And how would a tag for review supports the uncontested addition of icons? The idea doesn't have to only apply to those who want to remove icons either. It can also apply to those who wish to edit the icons, but I doubt any of them would also be editors of this guide. And if a tag is there, then the icons have already been included.
6. Same as above. Explain why it can't or shouldn't be done. You are only showing anti-graphic bias when you don't.
7. A generic image is a non-trademarked image that is not an official logo, flag, or crest, and not depicting a real person or official logo, flag, or crest. If you don't make special considerations for generic images, then any image on wikipedia could be considered an icon to dispute for removal regardless of size or meaning.
8. The ambiguity is in the definition of "icon." That's why this whole attempt at this guide may be futile WP:CREEP beyond repair.
9. Depends on #8
10. It could be worded just as it's written in my original point #10.

Oicumayberight (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick initial question, the notion of bias has come up a few times. Irrespective of who may or may not have an "anti-graphic bias" (as you refer to it), is this bias any less or more valid than the (apparent) corollary of a "pro-grahic bias"? --Merbabu (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any bias would be irrelevant if the person making the case for inclusion or exclusion of graphics made objective arguments for inclusion or exclusion. I've only mentioned bias when there was no argument made or the arguments have been subjective. There's plenty of things I see on wikipedia that I don't like, but won't try to removed unless I have a good objective reason to do so. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not aware of any other MoS that states its goals, should a MoS even have a goal apart from offering guidance on it's subject matter. In my opinion no.

2. Agreed but hard to see it happening, WP:N and WP:RS are as subjective if not more

3. No other MoS does this and the subjectivity of a subject is it's self a matter of subjectivity

4. No other MoS does this clearly states this is a guideline. The wording of the guide should be unmistakeable as suggestions, not rules.

5. Nonsense

6. No. As is currently the case, user objects to a icon removal, a discussion is opened. NB the discussion like everyone discussion on wiki is open to whom ever wishes to get involved If so much as one user can explain meaning of the images other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply.

7. Generic icon should be handled that same as other decoration . A photograph set at 20px is an icon .

8. Non iconic images not covered by the scope of this guideline. And having both can help make the meaning less universally understood because of language or cultural barriers.

9. Non iconic images not covered by the scope of this guideline . Icons don't have captions (generally but not a 100% rule)

10. No other MoS does this MOSICON is clearly a legitimate place to ask for questions just like I can ask WP:IMOS if I have an Irish question Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to make a general reply rather than reply point for point. Some of your points are just saying "no" without objective reasons, which again just shows bias. But you did make some objective points by comparing this guide to other guides. My counter-point is that this MoS guide isn't trying to accomplish the same thing as most other MoS guides. This MoS is taking on a bigger challenge; maybe too big. A MoS that governs the way typography or page layout is presented will not be as controversial as a MoS that governs the way images are presented. This is partly due to the fact that the wikipedia software itself forces consistency between typography usages and gives editors less options to be inconsistent. It's also due to editors being more concerned with choice of words than the font or style of the text. So editors will have an easier time conforming to a MoS that deals with typography and layout than they will have conforming to a MoS that deals with graphics.

As for the goals, less is needed to be said about the goal of style guides that govern typography and layout than guides that govern images because consistency is obviously the goal of a typography and layout MoS. There are many more parameters to graphics than there are for typography or layout. Color scheme, size, shape, effects, line thickness, genre, media type, orientation, rendering style, and the list goes on. I could probably list 100 parameters, but you get the point. The meaning of graphics can range from concrete diagrams to abstract symbolism with 100 points in-between. Trying to force consistency between the way graphics are presented is much more difficult, much more subjective, and should allow for much more flexibility by nature than text or layout. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given objective reasons for all of the above. I disagree the challenge of this MoS is bigger than WP:N or WP:R or the {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} listed here . These guidelines are cornerstones of the projects. You give the example of typography which is not apt as you say the software looks after this , hense we've no MoS about the type of font, we do however have WP:MOSTEXT and 10 layout guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section has a very active talk page which would suggest people aren't having an easier time conforming to this subsection of the MoS.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that it's a different and more difficult challenge than the ones that deal with typography and page layout, especially with the lack of graphic design consideration that has gone into writing the guide so far. MOS guides about typography and page layout haven't generated as much controversy in the short amount of time as this has. Keep in mind that this MOS hasn't been around as long and effects far fewer pages than a MoS about typography and page layout. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is the goal of the MoS like all the MoS but we don't care about colour ,shape ,effects etc we care about where icons are used that is all. Why would a diagram be an icon it would be to small to see Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't where icons are used. The problem is in how you define icon. It's subjective. Any image can be considered an icon. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about icon not diagrams. Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking diagrams. When I say graphic, I mean any image. Most of what you consider icons are illustrations. And it's subjective even if you specify the pixel size. Some images are easier to recognize at smaller pixel sizes than others. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we do as we currently WP:BRD when it's debatable if its an icon or a small image, just as we do when a RS is debated or if something is Notable or what have you. We are just repeating old discussions , if you want a rewrite then start writing , have at it with a a sledge hammer and others will too. Scalpels will come later. I'm not going to keep repeating myself Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent] Having a guideline about "images except flags" and another one about flags will just sow confusion and in-fighting. This started as just a flags thing, then broadened to cover flag-like things (heraldry, road signs, etc.) that were being used in articles, and so on, a bit at at time, until one day we got a pretty solid consensus rolling that the issue was flag or shields in particular, it was "decoration-itis" and cutesy or lazy attempts to replace readable text with pictures. The idea, expressed near the top of this sub-thread, that a flags guideline was merged with a decorative images one is nonsense. There were no two separate guidelines, or even proposals. I know; I wrote the first draft of this and was long involved in its evolution, though I've left it to others for a couple of years now. This guideline grew organically, with a ton of input by a lot of people, and very extensive discussions about pretty much everything it covers. So, consider this an oppose on the idea of splitting. I generally agree with Merbabu's numbered list of responses near the top of this sub-thread on what may or may not need addressing. When I periodically review this document I usually find something stupid in it, and a flamewar on the talk page about that stupid something. The stupidities are almost alway either due to someone who hates icons trying to ban them or at least advance a more and more anti-icon agenda, even when icons have in fact been found useful in some circumstances, or conversely due to someone who just totally loves icons all over the place and is very upset that they can't decorate the living crap out of every article with pointless widgets. This guideline, like all of them, has to strike a sane balance. And emphatically no, it is not always "objective". A large number, maybe even a strong preponderance, of style (and much other) advice and policy in Wikipedia is not objective at all, but consensus-subjective, being the collective majority view on what best serves the encyclopedia and its readers, generally at the expense of one or more other interests. We're all humans, with personalities. Virtually nothing about an endeavor like this can possibly be objective. What can be semi-objective - arbitrary, in the original legal sense, as in "arbitration", not the negative sense of the word - is review and considerations of the various views on this or that aspect of the broad question "what is best for Wikipedia". This guideline more than most has seen too-entrenched, vitriolic agenda-pushing and needs more consensus building. A POV fork into two guidelines, so that flag nuts (or flag haters for that matter) can disentangle their pet pseudo-issue from larger considerations, is the last thing we need here. And with that I'll probably not post here again for another year or two. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the idea that this part of the MOS should be in two parts, but certainly not as a flags versus others split. I think that WP:Manual of Style (images) needs to address:

• ”standard images”, typically located to the left or right of prose text and rendered with normal MediaWiki image syntax
• image galleries, typically rendered with <gallery>…</gallery> but also within table cells when illustrating adjacent table cell data
• images used to decorate infoboxes, such as photos, maps, flags and coats-of-arms, etc. This would not include icons used within infobox fields, but only images that occupy the width (or half-width) of the infobox, for example.
• images used to decorate navboxes, such as with the image= parameter of {{navbox}}. Icons used within the navbox or on the title bar would not be applicable to this part of the MOS, but only to the icon part of the MOS.

I think that MOSICON has sometimes been used to justify changes for some of these image situations, and that might be the cause of some discontent with this guideline in its current form. I believe that WP:Manual of Style (icons) should truly limit itself to icons exclusively. The definition of an icon should be clarified; currently it is any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags, but perhaps a better definition would be any small images, approximately the size of plain text, and rendered adjacent to, or in place of plain text. I believe that an icon-specific guideline can be successful under that type of definition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does make more sense to address icons in a MoS on images and to be very specific about what is called an icon if a different set of guide lines are applied. So why did Gnevin nominate that MoS for deletion? Oicumayberight (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes no sense at all have icons in an MOS on images - unless of course you want to confuse things and make icons appear more legitimate because some might think they are images when their usage is as icons. Great, instead of whether they are decorative, we could argue over whether they are images or icons. However, I'm glad there appears to be some demarcation now between icons and images as opposed to a few comments above which tried to lump them together. And, an icon used as an icon is an icon. (PS - why is it still about Gnevin?) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it still about Gnevin? Because Gnevin is still involved. Duh! He was the one who put the article up for deletion. And until you define icon in a way that is not subjective, there is no difference between icon and images. It says "any small images." Every image on wikipedia is small compared to the largest image on wikipedia. Small is a relative term, that is a fact. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious why WP:Manual of Style (images) is nominated for deletion, if you care to understand what is going on. In it's current form, all it does is transclude two other existing MOS pages, with little else to add:

For issues relating to image copyright, fair use, and what sorts of images are allowed on the projects, see the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]] and our [[Wikipedia:Picture tutorial|image and picture tutorial]].

There are sections related to images in other parts of the Manual:
* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Images|general image style]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Images|image accessibility]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Images|page and image layout]]

As of 2010, there are not yet sections of the Manual devoted to audio, video, or other media (which are uploaded similarly and subject to similar copyright guidelines).  Two specialized parts of the manual, on image '''captions''' and '''icons''', are transcluded below.

= Captions =
{{:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions)}}

= Icons =
{{:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)}}

What I am suggesting is that we write an actual set of image guidelines, covering all the cases I outlined above. As for this page, I've already suggested an obvective definition of "icon": image that is approximately the size of plain text, and rendered adjacent to, or in place of plain text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on both counts, if you want to edit MOSIMAGES I will withdrawn the AFD Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's not obvious is why Gnevin or anyone who is interested in the quality of image usage on wikipedia wouldn't want to improve on a more thorough WP:Manual of Style (images) rather than just delete it in favor of a half ass WP:CREEPY attempt such as WP:Manual of Style (icons).

How about because I simply don't feel like writing an entire MoS. Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for your definition of icons, I agree that it's more objective. There is no need to mention what the "image" consists of. I would make it even stricter by stating an icon is any image (including empty space in the image) that's less than the vertical size of 3 lines of text. But if it's only the size and placement of the image that we are concerned with, then it's a page layout issue and should be covered in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). Oicumayberight (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decoration vs Distraction

In hindsight, I would have never gotten involved in this guide had Gnevin not cited this guide as an excuse to remove generic icons based on his own personal taste. But as some have correctly stated, this isn't about Gnevin. He has just been the best example I can think of for potential misuses of this guide so far.

I'm not beating a dead horse here, but it was obvious that Gnevin was dead wrong in citing this guide. The only thing he proved with his involvement in both of those articles is that photographs are preferable to renderings by consensus in wikipedia articles. And that was by accident. I think someone else actually suggested it at the time, while Gnevin disagreed. He even tried to remove the photographs and was voted down. Years later, in both of those articles, "small" images still remain, but are just less abstract. It was never a question of if the icons had meaning beyond decoration. It was a question of if meaning was made clear enough and if there were any possible images that could make the meaning clearer. This could have easily been handled case-by-case without citing the guide. And the guide did nothing to help the situation unless you count how the guide emboldened Gnevin to use it for the wrong reasons. But in the end, one might say that Gnevin removing the icons was the right thing done for the wrong reasons. Kind of like the corrupt cop who found illegal substance during an illegal search. Is that what we really want? If so, we should put a rule in the guide that says "remove any images that you personally don't like or don't understand how they help the article."

In Gnevins case, what he was complaining about is still not covered by this guide. He complained that the images were "childish," a matter of personal taste, but lacked the graphic design savvy to say what was childish about them. I knew from my professional graphic design experience that he didn't like the bright colors, the exaggerated features and the abstraction. He was basically complaining about the genre and the rendering style of the images. It's safe to say he was distracted by it. He didn't like it, and didn't have much trouble finding people who also didn't like it. What I've learned is that any rendering, regardless of genre is at risk of being considered "childish" compared to a photograph, in the same way that every kid thinks all cartoons are for kids regardless of what the cartoon is about. When it was made obvious that personal taste is not enough of a reason to remove something not liked on wikipedia, the argument shifted to that of meaning. Those who didn't get it (or were just playing dumb) outnumbered, but so what. If it was going to be a WP:POLL anyway, the reason doesn't matter. They didn't even have to play dumb. The majority was distracted by the fact that they didn't like the rendering style of the images regardless of size. But one thing was certain, the images were not exclusively decorative as proven by the longevity and the fact that the meaning of the images translated to dozens of languages that still use the same images.

What have I learned since? That decoration and distraction are two separate issues that should be handled differently. This guide is more objective for dealing with distraction. The issue of decoration is subjective. "Do not solely decorate" is really all that needs to be said about any article regarding decoration, regardless of size or content type. You don't even have to use images to decorate an article. You could even decorate using page layout and typography tricks aside from images, despite the restrictive software of wikipedia. The point is that decoration alone is not a problem unless it's distracting. Distraction is a little easier to prove than whether or not an image is purely decorative. To disprove that an image is purely decorative, all you have to do is find one user who finds relevant meaning in that image other than decoration. Conversely, to prove that an image is distracting, all you have to do is find one user that is distracted by it.

Now that we understand that Distracting is more objective than Decorative, what exactly is distracting? It actually has less to do with the content of the images or whether or not they mean anything. It has more to do with page layout issues like size, placement, and the number of images. That's where this guide (or even better, a guide on the broader subject of images, not just icons) can help objectively. Strict limits can be placed on the size, placement, and number of images. But no strict limits can be placed on the genre or rendering style of an image. And it's easier to speak to what is distracting than it is to speak to what has meaning.

What is at risk? The risk is that we go too far in the opposite direction by declaring war on distractions to the point that dull is the only acceptable remedy to distraction. That's why it's important that a guide actually guides, instead of enforces rules. Only enforcing rules is way too militant. If we want better quality, we need to guide editors to how to get better quality. We need to be constructive and solutions-oriented by finding better ways to help editors help wikipedia. My choice of images proved that graphics helped all the alternate language translators understand what the article was about. Wikipedia is the free international multilingual encyclopedia bridging the gaps between cultures. Some images are more universally understood than text. If a graphic seems irrelevant or meaningless, find ways to make it more relevant and meaningful. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't about Gnevin followed by 2 paragraphs about me . Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also is it fair to say you've no intention of being involved in a rewrite or improving this guideline but are in fact just here to rehash the same discussion that you've been rehashing for 2 years ever since the community decided to remove those icons you keep harping on a about? Gnevin (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read it, or did you just count how many times your name was used. The fact is you and those articles are prime examples of where the guide has failed. But if I were just interested in smearing your name, I wouldn't even have to work hard at it. Your name comes up in most of the disputes over the guide. All I would have to do is take the side of the many users who have disputed with you in numerous other articles. But that's not the point of what I posted. You must have been too embarrassed by what you did to even see the points I was making about the guide itself and how to make it more objective and successful.

Yes I'm interested in a rewrite. Your failures and the failures of this guide to help editors like you and the editors which you oppose should be taken into consideration during the rewrite so the same mistakes aren't repeated. When you quit trying to bury the evidence and learn from your mistakes, you will see that. I've admitted what I've learned from the experience. It's time for you to do the same. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Gnevin (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advising me to stop feeding you? I could have made the same points without even mentioning your name above, but everyone would have known who I was talking about. I can't help it that you've made yourself the best example of what's wrong with this guide.

I take it you are citing the essay on trolling because you either are admitting guilt, accusing me, or trying to divert attention from the valid points that I made regarding this guide above. I suspect it's all the above. Whatever the reason, this is not the forum to do any of the above. Are you ready to address any of those points? If not, what's your point that isn't ad hominem? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a subsection under "2.1.1 Inappropriate use" that states: Flags should not be used on disambiguation pages, unless flags are the topic being disambiguated. --Bejnar (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular example that made you think of this. And wouldn't this already be covered by the guideline for disambiguation pages? (It already says that there should only be one link per item and that they are sentence fragments.) oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Zeorymer has twice placed a flag on the Corvo disambiguation page. Based upon comments on the user talk page, Zeorymer seems quite patriotic. I find that an explicit statement is better than an implied one. Neither Wikipedia:Disambiguation nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) mention the use of flag templates/icons. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images and templates, where images are discouraged. It does give exceptions to aid navigation, but the examples given are very weak. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction could go either here or there, but I believe that it would be useful to place it one of the two places. --Bejnar (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid calling them "injunctions"; these are guidelines, not laws. But that said, I think at the disbar MoS is better. It's a guideline specific to disambiguation pages, and should be at the page covering them. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree like WP:IMOS FLAGS should be handled by DAB mos Gnevin (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely invented "rule". It comes down to preference. Testament that a LOT of editors are content with flags next to countries on wikipedia is the fact that most countries use them and they appear across most articles form sport to disaster response. No, they may not add anything further to the article but neither do some other things we have in place... I personally think settlement infoboxes without a flag look somehow empty and not right... Its a matter of preference. I think there should be a system in which you can choose to hide all flags for those who dislike them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That fact is there are those who like flags and those that don't. That is not disputed and if it was a simple matter of taste then sure keep the flags, however this guideline and those removing point out lots of issues with using flags whereas those who want to keep them are struggling to find 2 Gnevin (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the flags in {{Red Cross Red Crescent Movement}} ("National Societies" list) appropriate? To me they look like unnecessary decoration which just makes the page slower to load. I can't see any mention of navboxes in MOS:ICON. Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are with in the scope of MOS:ICON and WP:ICONDECORATION in particular, flags like that are no helpful and should be remove in my opinion Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the future of flag icons is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#MOS:FLAG I fear changes could be decided by only a small group of editors, so am making people aware here doktorb _words^deeds 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that conversation, and this one, and after reviewing these pages: List of the oldest verified people, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, List of oldest people in the world, List of oldest people by year of birth, List of oldest people by nation, List of oldest living people by nation, List of people with the longest marriages, List of oldest twins, List of oldest dogs, List of verified supercentenarians who died before 1980, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1980s, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s, List of Japanese supercentenarians (flags by Japanese prefecture), List of Swiss supercentenarians (flags by Swiss canton), I propose the following change to WP:FLAGBIO:

"Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence or death

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

The limitation to infoboxes and the ledes of articles, and the exclusion of place of residence, has led to pages like the longevity-related pages I've cited above. Please look through them and see if you think they should stand. The flags tell the reader nothing that the text nameplace does not already convey, the reasoning of the current WP:FLAGBIO is directly on point in regard to these lists, the icons make the pages slow to load, the flags are used in neither a restrained or sensible manner, they are no kind of navigation tool and they are, to my eye, and the eyes of other editors, visually distracting.

Review and consideration by previously uninvolved editors who deal regularly with matters of style would be a great help here. David in DC (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support the proposed change. It should have been obvious that flags for place of residence are just as misleading as flags for places of birth/death, but it seems that plenty of articles have squeezed round FLAGBIO and used flags for place of residence. This will close that loophole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; an obvious common sense reworking, for the reasons Bretonbanquet summed up so well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Bretonbanquet. --John (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's much clearer and more definitive. --Merbabu (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Aye aye! Jpatokal (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I thought it was fairly obvious already, but if there needs to be additional information in this guideline to helpconvey that, then go ahead.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For me, the "flags are visually appealing" rationale just did not feel like it would meet the necessity of having flags in lists. Then, someone expressed a concern about the ability to visually identify a country (if not through a flag, then what?), i.e. if there are 3 people residing in France on a particular list, how do we quickly note those people together? I think someone here mentioned sortable tables, and that caught my eye as a good solution to that concern. Regards, CalvinTy 14:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The proposed change doesn't change the spirit of the existing guideline, basically the change amounts to wordsmithing for clarity, and that's a good thing. Per WP:SERIAL I would like to see a comma after "residence" in "residence or death". ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the comma. David in DC (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The above proposed change represents a wiki-lawyered attempt to influence a third-party discussion.

I'm going to say this: not only is the proposed change wrong, but the current "guideline" is wrong: it uses exceptions to the rule (Bruce Willis born in Germany) to justify the rule...that's illogical. What really should be the guideline is that flag icon use for birth, death, and residence should be acceptable if the use is for purposes of identification, the identification has been confirmed by an outside source, and the nature of the flag icon use is not "jingoistic" in nature.

For some, flags might be nationalistic in nature, but for others they are a statistic. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wimbledon_singles_finalists_during_the_open_era

The point for some is that this list represents the most-dominant tennis nations when it comes to wins. One might say the flag icon is not needed there, since we already know the name of the nation.

But what if we wanted to see how relative dominance was spread out over time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

The flag icon in graphic, table, or list format is often useful as an identifier of similarities that is more than just "aesthetically pleasing" but is actually a tool of visual-spatial reasoning: one can surmise a lone flag icon by itself represents a self-made individual or a fluke win, while many flags represent the dominance of that particular power (even if just one player, such as Federer for Switzerland).

For some reason, those persons that use only half their brain (the right half) get upset with material that is graphically stimulatory to the left side (the visual-spatial and creative matrix). Thus the attempt to stifle what really doesn't need stifling.

Of course, one could just rename "current residence" to "nationality"...if we have a list of Nobel Peace prize winners, are we saying it's not OK to list Obama with an American flag, lest someone erroneously "assume" he is an American?Ryoung122 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W-League uses state and provincial flags for the various teams. I don't think that this is correct usage since the teams do not represent the state or province. They're not used in other North American leagues (Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League and others). Should they be removed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, they should be removed for the reasons you give above, as well as the fact that they just look awful in prose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be removed and also the names should be expanded. Not everyone knows what CA etc is Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove them on this article and a few others in November 2009, but was reverted soon afterwards by User:JonBroxton, so be prepared for a fight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I've had a runin with that user on this topic as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]