Talk:Hazard symbol

Chemical Weapon and Biological Hazard
It's awesome that they changed the radiation symbol. The chemical weapons and the biological hazard signs aren't exactly threatening looking though, if one didn't know what they stood for. The biohazard one sort of looks like some kind of cotton plant or something. The laser sign too. It isn't immediately obvious that whatever it is, can be really bad for you. Are there any attempts at all to change these, I wonder? 192.33.240.95 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge
just merge it, cant see why not.

As I am unfamiliar with merge, I don't know if this is redundant, but when you merge, don't forget to keep Mr Yuk. This is a more useful page than Warning Symbol for me, because I wanted the history of the symbols. However, I think I may be retarded, so this probably doesn't matter.--128.113.198.122 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Change
I read in the paper today that the radiation symbol has changed. A.Z. 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The radiation symbol has not changed. A symbol for ionising radiation has been introduced to differentiate ionising radiation from other kinds of radiation (laser light gets the radiation symbol, for instance - it's not good enough to label a source with the radiation symbol if could be confused with a laser assembly, for instance). Mattabat 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for tag
I think that the European symbols are treated as "different", thereby not giving the article a worldwide view.--Dark Green 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazard symbols details
I am converting a few hazard symbols to vector format. I noticed there are some unreadable details in the raster images - looks like it's manufacturing identifier and a UN conformance... I would like some help in converting those.

I believe my talk would be the best place to do this but I'm adding this to the watchlist anyway.

 MaxDZ8 talk  19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag
Dark Green, yes, it is treated differently. The symbols have diffrent meanings and are inturpreted a totaly different way. It is in no way being discriminatory to countries outside the US. Tag removed unless someone else sees differently.

Origin of biohazard?
I thought the biohazard symbol orignates from a Japanese feudal banner, but I can't find this anywhere. Any ideas? kzm 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See this: Hagakure what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.28.144 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Laser symbol?
I think adding 'laser hazard' symbol is a good idea... pic from Laser safety... FourBlades 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Penubag  00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Added First Trefoil Design
I added an SVG of what the Radioactive trefoil first looked like in 1946, I hope this is alright. --888gavin (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks! -- penubag  02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Yuk?
Dunno if it's been mentioned, but what about Mr. Yuk? Applejuicefool (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's a trademarked symbol, so it can only be used on the actual article page for Mr. Yuk. Does it deserve a non-pictured mention here? Applejuicefool (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...nevermind. *sigh* Was looking for the symbol on the main page. I figured out it was trademarked, but then didn't check back to see if someone had already done what I suggested. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether it's trademarked or not doesn't mean we cannot use it in this article, its just that it would have little purpose as Mr.Yuk is not nearly as widely used as the skull and cross bones. -- penubag  (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's "fair use"...I thought that meant it could only be used on the actual article for the topic itself...in this case, Mr. Yuk. Mr. Yuk IS a well-known and recognized symbol, if perhaps a bit dated. Is this article only for symbols that are in current use? Why include the blue and purple radiation symbol, then? Applejuicefool (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, we could use FU images mostly anywhere, but that shouldn't be a problem since in my opinion, Mr. Yuk is notable enough to have an image of him in this article. At the most, we should only mention it in the article somewhere and link to the Mr. Yuk article, but we don't need to have a picture. Articles are for discussing everything on the subject, including the history, so in this case the blue trefoil is completely notable. If you really think having an image of Mr. Yuck is needed, go ahead and add it, I'll mod the FUR.-- penubag  (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

DHS Safety symbols
I was looking for this stuff after seeing some of these. Wondering why the DHS wants us to run from Backstreet Boys and Michael Bolton. --John Moser (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
"European hazard sign, saying highly inflammable (33) - gasoline (1203)" - Is it vandalism? Why is there a warning for highly inflammable? 64.231.106.61 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but you can try delving into the article history to see if the first revision has been changed. You can use this automated tool to search for that revision  if you're lazy, or if you're in doubt, you can delete that section because material that is entered without a citation can be removed. Also, if it's really bugging you to find out, WP:RD would be the place to ask this question.-- penubag  (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * is there confusion about this flammable vs inflammable? 71.204.128.185 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflammable vs flammable
Flammable may be easier to understand by many, but inflammable is still correct. I suggest that we use the word inflammable but we link it to either Wiktionary or the linguistics section of the article Flammability. That way it would be both linguistically correct and easy to understand. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no one opposed, I, being bold, made the changes. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Inflammable may be just as correct as flammable, but why not use the word that is easier to understand? Why make people have to look it up? If you search for "inflammable" in Wikipedia, you are taken to the article on Flammability where there is a discussion of the two words and the confusion "inflammable" sometimes produces. The only citation in the entire article says the following:
 * “Inflammable” means the same thing as “flammable”: burnable, capable of being ignited or inflamed. So many people mistake the “in-” prefix as a negative, however, that it has been largely abandoned as a warning label.
 * http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/inflammable.html
 * Wiktionary says:
 * Inflammable can be misinterpreted as an antonym of flammable and so taken to have the opposite meaning to that intended. Where such confusion might arise, especially where this may be a safety hazard, one may prefer to use flammable or another synonym.
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inflammable (emphasis mine)
 * Let's change it to "flammable" and keep it that way unless there's a good reason to prefer the more confusing word. Ileanadu (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemical weapons symbol
What is the history of the Chemical warfare symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.187.104 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the triangle/rectangle/octagon?
I live in Canada, which might be at play, but I remember learning about a set of product safety labels where the triangle, rectangle, and octagon represented severity, and explosive hazard, skull and crossbones, and others were represented. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Info about the topic of Safety sign.....
--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) --58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) --58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) --58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) --58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=safety+sign&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
 * http://images.google.com.hk/images?num=10&hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20safety%20sign&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
 * http://images.google.com.hk/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=strict&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=allintitle%3A+office+safety+sign&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0
 * http://images.google.com.hk/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=strict&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=allintitle%3A+cleaning+sign&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0
 * http://images.google.com.hk/images?hl=en&safe=strict&q=occupational%20safety%20sign&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Nice links to information about safety signs, but are you suggesting that something be done to the article?Ileanadu (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding "warning sign" section
Expanded the section mentioned above and removed notice. Also changed plain images into thumbnails. Please notify me if this is wrong. Astatine211 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Astatine211

Carcinogenicity Warning?
Is there a commonly used sign to indicate something is carcinogenic? If there isn't there should be. As far as I know, there isn't one in the U.S. There's a symbol, which can be seen at Carcinogenicity, that has been proposed by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, but I have never seen it in use anywhere. Moreover, I personally find it unclear. I might know now that it means (potentially) carcinogenic, but I didn't before. Ileanadu (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have also seen this, which might work in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, but I don't know if it works for others. I think the chaining of the C's to suggest the DNA molecule is creative:
 * http://www.safety.vanderbilt.edu/training/hazcom/haz_15.htm

Ileanadu (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it indicated as the biohazard trefoil in a triangle on a purple background with "Carcinogen" beneath it. 86.44.41.1 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Drawing of Biohazard Symbol
The relative sizes of the graphical elements described are completely wrong. I tried to draw it like described, but the symbol looks too fat then. The correct measurements are described here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf --TeakHoken91.47.69.52 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

link lost Composcompos12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106213644/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722200125/http://ecb.jrc.it/ to http://ecb.jrc.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Does the "chemical weapons" symbol actually exist?
I've looked at multiple international standards (ISO 7010, GHS, etc) for the "chemical weapons" symbol as shown, and done every google search I can think of, and can find no evidence that the symbol on the page is actually used officially by any body. The page linked in the citation (the page for chemical weapons) does not show the symbol, nor can I find the symbol in that page's history. If we can't find a better reference (or, well, a reference at all), perhaps the symbol should be removed?

Elfchief (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Related AfD for radiation hazard symbol
Please see Articles for deletion/ISO 361, a deletion discussion for an article about the ISO standardization of the radiation hazard symbol, and comment there if you have an opinion. One potential outcome of that discussion (depending on participant concensus) would be to merge that article here, or to split off more of the content from here to expand the other article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - Overhaul of table
I feel this article could benefit from major overhaul of the opening table.

Recently, editors on the German Wikipedia project have been using tables to layout comparisons of symbols across various standards, such as on this article, Warnzeichen. I feel that this is a more informative table, that would provides an easier way to see contrast between symbols that is not currently present.

My idea is replace the existing table, eliminating the Unicode from the table, and doing a table with ISO 7010, Directive 92/58/EEC, Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations, and the United States, similar to the one on Warnzeichen. I would keep it limited to warning/hazard symbols. (e.g. Not including: prohibited, mandatory, firefighting, safe condition/equipment symbols.)-- The Navigators (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Chemical symbols table
The discussion thus far reads: "Your addition to hazard symbol is definitely worth doing but only if it is done right. It makes no sense to give the 1967 and 1975 EU laws (which have been repealed), but not the current status (2008!) - see page 325 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272 . I can see that maybe there is a place somewhere for historic symbols but not in the main table.

A revert may have seemed heavy handed but I felt that showing invalid information would not be an improvement (and I suspect that it is fairly easy for you to correct and resubmit, since most of the pictograms have not changed since the 1975 law). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) At 00:08, 9 June 2024‎ UTC, I attempted to clarify the table by adding (repealed) under the two obsoleted EU regulations, writing in the Edit summary:  In that case, we must make it clear that the table is showing historical pictograms and the laws that established them have been repealed, We cannot deliberately mislead our readers..
 * FYI: The document is in mono but §1.2.1.1. says Hazard pictograms as laid down in Annex V shall have a black symbol on a white background with a red frame sufficiently wide to be clearly visible. Hope that helps. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those would be the GHS symbols in column one, they're the same symbols. The EU adopted GHS symbols with CLP regulations in 2008, and phased them in through 2017.
 * I reverted it back to my version, but added some more text to the sections below to point out the phase-outs of the old EU and Canadian symbols.--The Navigators (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am copying this discussion over to talk:Hazard symbol as other editors may help resolve the dispute. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)"

At 04:25, 9 June 2024‎ UTC, reverted again, with the edit summary I conveyed that these are obsolete adequately, and I take direct offense with the "deliberately mislead our readers" comment in your prior edit summary.

I cannot counter-revert without a WP:3RR violation so I can only observe that WP:AGF cuts both ways. "Deliberately mislead our readers" means that the article is not giving the full picture without expecting the reader to decode the detail (the table should be providing "the essentials at a glance" overview); to do that knowingly is indeed "deliberately misleading". I do not suggest that The Navigators set out to mislead, but only that this is effect. Finally, The Navigators, you do not WP:OWN the table you added; if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were) and not WP:UNDUE detail.

At this point, I stand back and invite other editors to advise. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I want to start by pointing out that this entire thing started when undid my 18:06, June 8, 2024 UTC‎ edit, with his 21:04, June 8, 2024 UTC‎ edit, and then left me the talk message he quoted above. When I reverted JMF's 21:04, June 8, 2024 edit, I added information about the phase-out of the symbols to the sections below the table, and made it clear there.  I don't think including it in the information in the header is necessary and makes the header look cluttered. (The edit also introduced issues, which I discuss below.)
 * We cannot deliberately mislead our readers. - This statement outright calls my edits as trying to intentionally do this. This isn't "this could confuse readers", "this is confusing", "could be unclear", "is ambiguous", "accidentally mislead readers" or even "mislead readers". It's "deliberately". It says I did this on purpose, I'm sorry, that's how that reads, and I'm not happy about that.
 * I actually addressed your concern when I was reverting your original 21:04, June 8, 2024 UTC‎‎ edit, to add the table back to the article. Something you don't acknowledge in your description of the events above.
 * ...if other editors feel that they have good reason to improve the article, you must allow them to do so provided that their additions and changes are reliably sourced (as mine were)... - Your 00:08, June 9, 2024‎ UTC edit, adding the the 'repealed/amended' info in the table header for the two EEC regulations, did not remark on the WHMIS (far right column). That implies that WHMIS must not have changed, as nothing was said about it, when it has changed. Those were aligned with GHS in 2015. The changes to WHMIS were something I did point this out in my 23:27, June 8, 2024 UTC edit. (To be very clear, I believe this was completely accidental.)
 * Additional point, the citation you used for the Directive 92/58/EEC signage was incorrect, as that wasn't modified by the 2008 regulations. It was 2014's Official Journal of the European Union, L 065, 5 March 2014.--The Navigators (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I did not say that you are trying deliberately to mislead. In fact, as I have already said, I recognised your good faith and described the outcome as an effect ["law of unintended consequences"], not an intent to deceive. "AGF works both ways" means that you should equally respect my good faith in questioning that effect, without taking it personally. But I take on board your point that a better choice of words would have been more effective.
 * The essence of the dispute is clarity of the table. If we present information in this way (which is good, a busy reader gets the essential information at a glance and only needs to read the detail in the text if they need further information), then the table must make clear that the columns headed "European Union" (and Canada) are historical, not current.
 * I am happy to be corrected on the date of modification. I suggest that the fact that I got it wrong tends to underline my main point.
 * We have no dispute about ends, but only about means. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on the table did I state these were current symbols, in date symbols, active systems, etc. Just because information is placed into a table does not mean that said information is current. The headers had clear labels as to what each system was, using internal Wikilinks to relevant articles, and following my restoring the table to the article with the 23:27, June 8, 2024 edit, this was added into the Hazard Symbols article directly. We can't place all information into the table, the table is part of a larger article. It is not the article. The reason I put the table was to show the symbols, matched by type ('flammable', 'toxic', etc.) was to do a comparison of various systems.
 * (It's not relevant to our edit dispute, but I also want to push back on the statement that I am not acting in good faith in taking offense to the 'deliberately' in the 00:08, June 9, 2024‎ UTC edit summary. Honestly, use 'deliberately' was not AFG. Again, it suggest intentionality, that's why I had a problem with it. And this was after I made additional changes to the article to clarify the concerns you had raised with me in my talk page. I didn't just put the table back up and move on, I did further changes, not in my original reverted edit, that spelled the obsolete systems being obsolete.)--The Navigators (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be content if, under the EU Directive numbers, we had the word "repealed" in parentheses. Same for Canada, presumably. That tells the reader that they need to read the text if currency matters (WP:Wikipedia is not aside).
 * I am disappointed that we can't resolve this without asking for mediation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I am inclined to agree with JMF. Presenting the European Union/Canada symbols adjacent to the international standard gives the impression that they are in current use. For me, the clarity gained from adding "(repealed 2008)" or similar in the column headings is worth the added "clutter". &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I made an edit that I think will resolve the issue with the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I tweaked it further to show all three as "no longer used". Yes, you are correct to say that one Directive has been repealed and one amended, but the effect of those actions (which is what the table shows) is that they are no longer current. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit reverted - You need to carefully read the citation, because the citation for Directive 92/58/EEC only removed the 'harmful/irritant' symbol (2015 Amendment source, page 2-3. It did not repeal any other symbols in the Directive 92/58/EEC. Further, the directive still has legal standing, while European Normative ISO 7010 is in use in Europe; it coexists with Directive 92/58/EEC. Hypothetically, if ISO 7010 suddenly changed symbols regulated by Directive 92/58/EEC, and . (Say, changing the flammable symbol to plain circle). Hypothetically, if ISO 7010 implemented drastic deviations from 92/58/EEC (Ex:Replaced the flame in W021 - Flammable material with something that bore no resemblance to a flame), then you'd have to revert to the 92/58/EEC design, as that's the legislative benchmark. It's explained on pages 9, 10, and continued on the first sentence of 11, of Non-binding guidelines regarding Directive 92/58/EEC. If you do have a source that says it was repealed, amended in such a way that it removed/replaced those symbols,  92/58/EEC was explicitly repealed, another legislation amended in a way that effectively repealed it, or was amended in a way that the original 92/58/EEC symbols were replaced with other symbols then I would like to see it, and you should include that source if you redo your edit to the table.-- The Navigators (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) ; edited 18:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a very big IF indeed, since ISO standards are developed by the consensus of national standards bodies. It is vanishingly improbable that a new standard would be published against the consensus of EU member states to the extent that they resolved to ignore it.
 * The 'Non-binding guidelines regarding Directive 92/58/EEC' says that 92/58/EEC is the base level and that any member state or employer who uses ISO7010 is in compliance since the ISO standard meets and exceeds 92/58/EEC. So it seems to me that the table as it stands is legalistically correct but misleading because the 'Non-binding guidelines' represent the Commission's advice on best practice for the 21st century, but the table fails to present it.
 * However, I have decided that I no longer wish to spend any more time on this issue. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that this entire thing started with your concerns that the original version of the table I created was misleading to readers, due to it not including what symbols were and were not in force; it's amazing to now hear that you're saying that there's nothing wrong with grouping two sets of symbols that have absolutely no legal force and have been removed from legislation, with a set of symbols that are still part of active legislation and approved for use.
 * Frankly though, I'm happy to hear you don't wish to spend more time on this, because the amount of time I've spent dealing with this has been infuriating. I'm tired of ending up with additional work because you aren't happy with my edits. Have a good day.-- The Navigators (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concluded that the added line is good enough and further debate had reached the point of diminishing returns. My "happiness" or otherwise is irrelevant: what matters is that visitors who need just the essential information are not misdirected by an overly legalistic record. The very fact that the EC published the 'Non-binding guidelines' report should tell you that listing 92/58/EEC without qualification is not especially helpful.
 * As to your "infuriation", I suggest you read Collaboration first. I will not respond further, other than to note that the independent adjudicator concurred with my assessment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "cute" Collaboration first suggestion.
 * 14 1/2 years editing and this is hands down the worst interaction I've had with an editor and I suspect will remain that way. Topping this would take actual effort.
 * That should speak for itself.
 * And frankly, go read it yourself. It describes you quite well: ...editors who are consistently disruptive and uncivil....
 * This entire thing started with you reverting my original edit, rather than trying to make changes yourself, over a personal opinion that the way I did the table was wrong, and making it my problem to fix. Then deciding that my changes actually weren't good enough, implementing changes your way, poorly, which ironically resulted in the circumstance you were concerned about in the first place, and while doing so, leaving a smug, inappropriate remark in the edit history that suggests, by any reasonable reading, I was trying to deliberately mislead.
 * You then cried about it when I reverted that edit. I go get someone to give us an opinion on it because neither of us is moving from our position and this talk page sees virtually no users. You cry about that, despite you saying I stand back and invite other editors to advise.. The third party agrees with you and I make the changes to the table with no complaints or pushback, that are consistent with your position on the table's design. You then edit that, making changes that, once again, create the problem you were complaining about in the first place.
 * I'm going to be clear here: No. Combining symbols that are still on the books and have legal force with ones that have been removed and have no legal authority is not appropriate. This is inaccurate and is potentially confusing, especially considering that the citation you were using, doesn't even back up that position anyway, because it was only regarding the deletion of the Harmful/Irritant symbol and a few technical changes, that aren't relevant to this discussion. It was amended to remove the one sign. The rest of it still has standing.-- The Navigators (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You then cried about it when I reverted that edit. I go get someone to give us an opinion on it because neither of us is moving from our position and this talk page sees virtually no users. You cry about that, despite you saying I stand back and invite other editors to advise.. The third party agrees with you and I make the changes to the table with no complaints or pushback, that are consistent with your position on the table's design. You then edit that, making changes that, once again, create the problem you were complaining about in the first place.
 * I'm going to be clear here: No. Combining symbols that are still on the books and have legal force with ones that have been removed and have no legal authority is not appropriate. This is inaccurate and is potentially confusing, especially considering that the citation you were using, doesn't even back up that position anyway, because it was only regarding the deletion of the Harmful/Irritant symbol and a few technical changes, that aren't relevant to this discussion. It was amended to remove the one sign. The rest of it still has standing.-- The Navigators (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)