Template talk:Wikipediatoc with icons

HOW TO MAKE ICONS BETTER:
Please leave suggests here.

Smoother, more detailed!
Make the rest of the icons more similar in style to the "Nature and the Natural sciences" icon. That globe looks great. The icons should all be refreshing to match the revamped Wikipedia design. mnemonic 23:42, 2004 May 30 (UTC)
 * OK. It takes more time. Kenny 11:52, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
 * I can upload new images once I get home... i'm at a memorial day party right now. KirbyMeister 16:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe more like this? Fredrik 16:35, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU! Very glad to see! I like it! First coworker! I recomend to use sodipodi, it allows much more flexible and cooperative artwork. Kenny\

More clear
I think the icons should more clearly convey the topic, and also encompass all categories of the topic. For the nature topic, there is no indication that it has to do with science; maybe a DNA strand or atom would be better. For engineering, I think the ruler, compass, and T-square icon is best, because it show that it is also about mathematics, or maybe add the gear wheel to that icon. The humans icon is good, because all the categories have to do with people. The society icon looks like a brick, a matchbox, or anything not remotely pertaining to society. For this, I think the flag works best, or maybe a judge's gavel. For the religion etc category, the star icon makes it look like it's about astronomy. For the hobbies topic, the icon should look less like the "humans" icon, maybe one of the happy face icons. In other words, someone should be able to look at the icons by themselves, and know which one to click on to find the information they want.
 * Thank you! I'll just note, here douldn't to be direct indication to science. Because there is knowledge that is not science. Kenny 10:55, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Earth icon!
Friends, please compare and contribute:
 * 1) [[Image:Earth_icon.png]] svg source, Kenny
 * 2) [[Image:Earth_icon_Fredrik.png]] png only, Fredrik
 * 3) *Note: The source image is 60x60 and has transparent background, but it's a raster image (PSP format). Unfortunately I haven't figured out how to create PNGs with alpha channel transparency in PSP yet. Fredrik 20:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Use sodipodi for Linux and windows. Kenny 07:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Bullets
One idea is to simply use bullet marks with various colors, and shapes as separators. This solution is efficient, clean and unitrusive. It also avoids the issue of having poor symbols or possibly offensive symbols in some cultures. Either way, I believe that Wikipedia should adopt bullets or icons. Also, for the sub-projects such as Wikisource, Wikibooks, and Wikiquote there should be project icons above the text as it once used to be.

For an implementation with bullets, check out the Spanish (es) Wikipedia. The only difference from that implementation and the one I'm suggesting is that I wish each area to have a different shape, as well as color. --Exigentsky 03:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see what this looks like. The main problem with that part of the page is that there's nothing to help the eye quickly differentiate about 16 lines of text. +sj +
 * Agreed. Some type of visual marker is needed for each topic. I think colored bullets (about 60x60 pixels in size) should be implemented immediately as an interim solution while the icons are developed further. James C. 07:40, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

PSP dosen't support alpha channel transparency in .PNG's yet.


 * JediMaster16 15:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misc
Blah, i think this is just clutter, i saw the smiley face on the Human page, it just clotters it, doesnt provide any useful information, and it is just ugly, larger than the text so it doenst fit in. Please oh please dont put these silly things on pages, its ok for me to have them on the main page showing the various subjects. That alone can cause problems, like why should there be a blue f&#314;ag in politics, why not a red one? :) Just another cause for conflicts and flamewars. Doesnt it also add up to more bandwidth use? thanks /visitor - I'm not sure I like this. My initial thought was "great idea". However, upon reconsideration I have severe doubts. The bottom line is that icons have to provide information. Unfortunately, I can only see that icons would work for specific topics rather than family of topics. For example, Philosophy could be represented with a "thinker" or question-mark, Music by a quaver, theatre by the happy/sad masks. But something that looks like the sun to encompass all these areas, as well as religion and the rest just confuses the issue. How does the sun have any link to philosophy or music? Is wikipedia suggesting religion has something to do with the sun? and so on....

My point is not to criticise an icon that doesn't work. Merely to point out that a single icon representing all these subjects and conveying useful information causing the user to think "aha, thats where "music" must be" (for example) is impossible to implement. Also, I'm not sure the use of icons is particularly useful anyway as the information contained herein is (99.9999%) prose. Using wikipedia involves words not pictures. My 2c anyway...

I think having icons on the ToC is a great idea, I'm now wondering why no-one has thought of this before. It really adds something to the ToC     Lurker 16:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Kenny sh 17:35, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that there should be an option for users as to whether or not one wishes to view icons on the main page, or go with the uncluttered view. Nonetheless, it does add some, well, colour to the page, as well a degree of welcoming.

Buzfvar (82.36.153.112 21:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC))

It certainly looks a lot better. This, along with the new theme thats being tested on the sister projects this will make Wikipedia look great! Krik 22:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the "On Society, Social sciences, and State" icon is the weakest of the six, and the smiley face one has something of a different tone than the others, but besides those two concerns, it's a great idea and they look great. :) jengod 23:14, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Suprised it didnt have icons earlier! KirbyMeister 00:56, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The icons definitely do add colour to the page, but we can refine the choice of the icons for each category. The idea is welcome. Sundar 05:46, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Some concerns

This is an excellent approach, and bravo for thinking of it and putting it forward. I have, however, discovered a couple problems with display and layout in different browsers and skins.

A picture will cover this best, I think:



As you can see in the first screenshot, my copy of IE 6.0 (came with the OS) doesn't make the background transparent.

As well, my usual skin (Cologne Blue) in my usual browser (Firefox) has narrower line breaks, so you have the 'left side stacking' that you can see in the second shot.

Perhaps make the icons just a bit smaller, or otherwise adjust the layout. As for the transparent stuff, graphics aren't my forte, so I don't know what to say there.

Hope this is useful. Radagast 02:01, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Transparency? Use indexed PNGs. By the way, I don't like the idea. These icons are too simplistic. - Fennec (&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:42, May 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed the stacking bug. Dysprosia 02:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)`

I can't say that I'm thrilled about the smiley icon; it's overly distracting and iconic already with different connotations than the one it's used for here. Alas, I'm complaining without having an alternative to suggest, which my father always taught me never to do. -- Seth Ilys 02:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I just plain don't like it. kcar1986 03:04, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like them much either, but I don't like the categories chosen (Maths with Engineering and Technology? IMHO it should be with natural sciences or maybe philosophy). If icons are kept, tone down the colours and drop the smiley. As an alternative, maybe a TV icon would work -- for most western-world people, TV is the major form of entertainment. I like the suggestion of it as a config option (my choice: off). This would probably require a new type of wiki object, like icon:smiley.png, or image option and we would have to put up with them cropping up on other pages. Andrew Kepert 04:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I like it a lot (including the smiley). I do, however, agree that mathematics should probably be with the hard sciences. Most of the specific icons are great, however:
 * The "flag" for society, etc. should be clearer (not cut off).
 * What do you mean? Kenny sh


 * I'm not sure what the thematic connection is between the "star" (or is it a sun?) and Religion, Culture, Philosophy, etc.Dovi 05:50, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is some far, nice, light and abstract. Most religions have a star in symbols. Have you another ideas?

Sorry, I prefer it without the icons ;-) &mdash; Matt 08:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for comments! I'll take care. Kenny sh 09:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I hate them. The single biggest annoyance with web design, for me, is unnecessary visual clutter. Patterned backgrounds, too many pictures, coloured type, unnecessary frames - the internet is full of pages which are spoiled by simply having too much stuff going on. Wikipedia is generally an honourable exception, with simple, clear page layouts. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for four-year-olds who need brightly-coloured visual stimuli to hold their attention; I find the icons pointless and patronising. Did I mention that I hate them? Sorry for the forcefully expressed opinion, but... Harry R 13:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Harry. In the words of my history teacher, "[The book] gave you these pictures assuming you guys can't read." I don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think the icons are necessary.

I'm not an expert at usability, but if you are trying to improve usability by making these topics easier to find, the headings for each topic are probably short enough that they can be read by visitors and more easily understood than the icons. IMHO, text and links that are very frequently read/accessed, such as "Edit this page" and "Discuss this page," are more deserving of icons than these topic headings.

On the other hand, if you are aiming for eye candy, these icons are far too flamboyant, and distract from even the topic links themselves. Perhaps reducing the icons to black silhouettes might help them fit into the general (serious and "professional") look and feel of the Main Page. – Minh Nguy&#x1ec5;n (talk, blog) 20:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The icons are not too bad, but I suggest using a more consistent/coherent colour scheme. -- PFHLai 03:36, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

I'm against using the icons: Icons are only ever a good idea if they're useful, i.e. if the information they convey graphically comes across more easily with using them than through other means (text). This isn't the case here, because IMHO they're simply not "obvious" enough. Hence, I think these icons are useless, and they're not beautiful enough to count as eye candy. They're a waste of bandwidth -- not because they were big (they're not), but because every superfluous pic on a webpage is a waste of bandwidth. ropers 18:44 2004 May 26

Transparency
Looks, IE have problems in rendering png with transparent colors.

Entertainment
Sure, TV is one of important entertaiments. There a lot of entertaiments, not related to TV. Main goal of entertaiments is to make happy life. Kenny sh 09:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * How about a dancing person for the "entertainment" icon -- entertainment does not need to be passive! And then we need all of these icons re-drawn by a proper icon artist. -- Anon.


 * I disagree with "Main goal of entertaiments is to make happy life." and the conclusion that a smiley represents entertainment.
 * Happiness is not only derived from entertainment. The main goal of Mathematics is to make a happy life too.  (For Mathematicians if noone else.)  Similarly for Science, Automobiles, Family, Poetry, etc.  What the hell else is wikipedia for, other than to keep happy a bunch of people who are passionate about their own corner of human knowledge.  8-)
 * Hobbies and Entertainment is not only about inducing happiness -- read Hobby and Entertainment. A lot of entertainment is scary, shocking, melancholic, exciting, thought-provoking, impulsive, etc.
 * My overall preference is (as stated above) to not adopt the icons. Even if they were adopted, there would have to be a new wiki "icon" class to handle it.  Not just so that cantankerous icon-haters can turn them off.  What do computer users do with icons?  They click them, but don't expect to get a page detailing when the image was last uploaded.  Icons would have to be configured have a pre-defined or configurable destination.  AFAIK this is not a feature of the current image syntax/handling, which has been developed with figures in mind.  Sorry.  Andrew Kepert 03:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

culture, philosophy, and religion
I like them a lot, except that I think the sun icon could be replaced by an open book, relating to culture, philosophy, and religion Danny 11:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It is difficult to chouse icon for culture, philosophy, and religion because it is abstract knowledge. Book good, but it is ambiguty. Book aslo mean knowledge, literacy, science. Kenny sh 11:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I've used the star, because it means some far, nice, brightness and abstract. Most religions have a star in symbols. Kenny sh 11:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Have you another ideas?
 * I like the idea of having icons. But I don't care much for the last two. The smiley is just jarring. Representing a category which includes "fine arts" with such a simple uninteresting symbol seems a waste. Avoid trying to make a religion reference - make an art reference. Rmhermen 16:18, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good. The smiley is jarring and a bit too big; any individual recreation, like a dancing stick figure, would be better. And I agree with Rmhermen that an art reference -- a tiny stained-glass window image? -- is better than the abstract simple star. A (pretty) book would also be fine. 66.93.83.78 16:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I associate The Star icon [[Image:Star_icon3.png]] [[Image:Star icon.svg|src]] with Enlightenment. Kenny sh 13:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you could keep in mind that the Enlightenment is not a universal concept approved by all. I will not get into this matter deeply here, but there are beliefs like the counter-enlightenment, or ideas that relate the Enlightenment with progressivism or westernization. If we are going to use icons, what they imply must be kept neutral, although I know that this is no easy task and I cannot think up of any alternatives. &#x671D;&#x5F66; 12:56, 2004 May 30 (UTC)
 * I also associate the star icon [[Image:Star_icon4.png]] with soul, spiritual enlightment and Enlightenment (concept), not only with The Enlightenment. Kenny
 * If that is the case, then I can assent to it a little more. (though still not 100%) &#x671D;&#x5F66; 08:58, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
 * I would also to add Bodhi, meditation, nirvana, karma and religions. Kenny 11:35, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

Oh no no no! I hate them, they are ugly, cluttering, frivolous and don't even work well with my browser. And the bottom three aren't even enlightening. Please no. Or at least allow us to switch them off. Monk Bretton 21:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Culture/Entertainment are way different from Philosophy. I dont see how they can be grouped together, and it makes it harder as an icon designer to make an icon that encompasses them all. A star has little to do with Culture/Entertainment. C/E can be represented by masks, a movie reel, VHS tape, a TV, or even a videogame joystick! However, Philosophy can be represented by a greek building, a bust, a Bible... however I see no icons that work well for both categories. KirbyMeister 21:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Icons or Text only
Wikipedia already has a "text only" version of the Main page. I think this should be the key. No icons on the text only version, but yes to icons on the normal version. Krik 13:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * But I like the other pictures on the main page. They have a function; they are illustrative examples of the content within Wikipedia and they serve to pique the curiosity of the casual reader. They are specific, and communicate details of the content. Generally speaking, the advantage of pictures in an encyclopedia is that they can show you things it would be laborious and misleading to describe in the text. So, for example, the pic of the Anise Swallowtail on today's mainpage not only immediately tells me something specific about the content of Wikipedia, it also tells me something about the butterfly (what it looks like) which could not be effectively communicated by a text description. The little icons meet neither of these functions; they don't communicate anything specific, and they are much less informative than the text they are sitting next to.
 * Icons serve a purpose when they are are used properly; they are a familiar symbol which, wherever it is used, serves to indicate the same thing. You might use them in a language textbook's margins to differentiate between new vocabularly, grammar points and practice exercises, for example (although even there I've never found them particularly useful). These 'icons' aren't actually serving as a genuine reference at all; they're not icons, they're just decoration. They're the stylistic equivalent of using a wacky font and a load of clipart on a flyer for the church bakesale, just because you can. Again, apologies for the intemperately expressed opinion, but this really strikes me as a bad idea. Harry R 15:20, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Updates
I've changed flag and smilely icon. Latter I'll draw another variants of icons. You may also to draw icons. Just download SVG source, edit with Sodipodi, render, and upload png and svg files. Kenny sh 08:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, stop it. Stop changing icons all the time without really changing anything. If we are going to use icons we need high-quality, clear and descriptive icons. The current approach doesn't have much of it. &#9999; Sverdrup 20:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It is creative process! I happy that it's going! Kenny

Agreed - they are getting worse. The leaf was the cleanest, simplest icon to start with (IMO), best representing a diverse category of knowledge with minimal clutter. It is next to impossible to do this across the categories given -- they have fuzzy boundaries. We now have a building for society/business/etc category, yet architecture is under Technology. We have a dancing man for entertainment, yet dance is in the cultural category. There are technical issues to be resolved (click on icon?). They are still as ugly as sin (IMO). There is a clear majority vote against (2:1 approx) and most of the comments seem to be negative. I can't see this going anywhere fast. Andrew Kepert 03:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * About building - building means people, that live and work in building. About dancing - amateur dancing and watching dance is entertaiment, professioan artistic dancing - is art. Kenny 07:56, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

I also can't see this going anywhere fast, as the task of putting these broad subjects to symbols is very difficult. This is no reason not to keep trying though; having a symbol that represents something well is worth a thousand words. Bensaccount 04:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Icons improve imagenation thinkig. Kenny 07:56, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Added door,, toc page is protected, I can't update! Kenny

Voting?
I've seen many nos here. So I just wanted to say I like the idea - even though the current set isn't really adequate yet. It's probably good to have a place where people can simply say "no" or "yes", to get a better overview.

I don't like icons yet, please improve it!

 * 1) 213.253.40.46, unless the implementation is much better than this
 * 2) I would like them to look more serious, not a smiley and a star and a cute flag. MvHG 13:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Maarten van Vliet 13:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC) - I don't like them in the present form, colours and shapes are nog right for Wikipedia or the topics they represent. Could have been done better. For example, on each page dealing with maths a small symbol could be placed at the top of the page. This could certainly be an improvement.
 * 4) Baudelaire 04:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC) They're improving already.  I like the most recent set a lot.
 * 5) --IYY 19:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) The technology and nature icons are great, others need to evolve a bit more. But I like the idea - it adds another visual element to the main page. Since so many users don't like the icons, maybe they could be added as an option?
 * 6) Paranoid 11:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) I don't like these icons - they are bland and boring. I've got some nice animated gifs that I can upload to Wikipedia, wadda ya think? Also, we can replace horisontal lines everywhere with nice rainbow bars. And background MIDI music... And how about adding an "Under construction" icon to stubs? Come to think of it, I am going to try that when I feel particularly adventurous...

I like icons, in general

 * 1) Lurker 16:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) jengod 23:14, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) KirbyMeister 00:56, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Sundar 05:46, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Radagast 02:01, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Rmhermen 16:18, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) 66.93.83.78 16:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Guaka 00:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Krik 09:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 03:48, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) 80.179.8.6 15:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) exigentsky 20:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) +sj + 08:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC) Like the idea; icons need to be classy (like the wheel) and clearly identifiable (like the person), but they liven up a dead (undifferentiated) part of the page.
 * 14) siroxo 13:22, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC) Please see my "Thoughts on the icons" subsection below
 * 15) James C. 07:37, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) they're fine. you could nitpick endlessly about how they look, but overall they get the job done well.

I don't like icons

 * 1) Monk Bretton 21:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Darklight 26 May 2004
 * 3) ropers 26 May 2004
 * 4) [[User:81.226.106.103]visitor], 26 May 2004
 * 5) --bodnotbod 20:30, May 26, 2004 (UTC) - but if they are instituted please make them classy - I find the present designs ugly. Sorry - I realise someone has put unpaid time and effort into them.
 * 6) Jeandré, 2004-05-26t21:06z, I'm not convinced they're necessary and I don't get the smiley and star icons, but I wouldn't mind them even if on by default.
 * 7) fonzy
 * 8) Abigail 00:30, May 27, 2004 (UTC) not only am I not convinced icons add anything, I find the chosen icons not at all intuitive. The subjects ranges in each category are too broad. I don't see what a spoked wheel has to do with Computer Science, Logic or Statistics, or a leaf with Chemistry or Astronomy. OTOH, the star icon doesn't lead me to Astronomy, instead, it leads me to subjects like Dance, Cooking, the Soul and Opera. A blue flag stands for Economy and Law? Now that a smiley face leads me to Humour, that's a match. But I also need to select the smiley face for Gardening and Tourism. Now, I don't have alternatives - I don't think it's possible to find intuitive icons for the current division of subjects.
 * 9) amar 05:29, May 27, 2004 (UTC) - the icons look sort of clunkyish; spoils the neat effect of the page
 * 10) Designing good icons is trickier than it looks.  Overall, I'd say that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  --65.146.234.124 09:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Harry R 10:25, 27 May 2004 (UTC) Why? What's the point? What are they for? Less is more.
 * 12) Andrew Kepert 22:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC) (see above for my comments)
 * 13) Minh Nguy&#x1ec5;n – see above comments
 * 14) Dreamyshade I'd only consider icons if they were excellent and all-black. Otherwise, they're just not necessary.
 * 15) gbog Don't feel the need of them. Their use is to save space on the screen but they will do the opposite, i'm afraid.
 * 16) GUllman 18:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Nice attempt, but I'm afraid simple icons are inherently POV. Not only do you end up choosing only one aspect of a broad field to represent the whole, but different people may associate a given icon with different subjects.
 * 17) Angela. 19:31, May 28, 2004 (UTC) They lack consistency. If there were decent icons I might change my vote, but not with these ones.
 * 18) Chuq 01:59, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 19:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC) These icons just look like straight out of the clipart collection, i.e. ugly, they don't conceive a meaning (see Abigails comment), and they are very large.
 * 20) I don't like them.  I think they're unnecessary. -- Heron 20:12, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) I don't know about being necessary or unnecessary &#8212; I just plain don't like them. kcar1986 17:11, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Cyrius|&#9998; 01:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Fennec (&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 03:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Jeff 05:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC) With the categories as they are (as many people has pointed out), I see no way to fairly represent such broad classifications symbolically.
 * 25) Aaron Hill 09:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC) - too simplistic, misrepresent topics
 * 26) Jacques2 12:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (icons are ugly in any event. And unnecessary)
 * 27) cesarb 22:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Scurra 23:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC) They lack consistency and don't really fit with the topics. Maybe if they were all in more muted colours or greyscale? And what is the person next to hobbies and entertainment doing? It looks like they're fencing, but it seems strange to use a martial art as the icon for such a broad topic.  (Note by Andrew Kepert: I think they're dancing, but no-one has noticed that "dance" is under a different category.)
 * 29) Fredrik 15:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Don't like these. Might approve if a much better looking set is used.
 * 30) Johnstone 21:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC).  I agree with GUllman above: they appear to be inherently non-NPOV.  To associate anything with subjects other than the terms or images already widely used to refer to them will be non-NPOV&mdash;and even the use of existing terms is sometimes controversial.  Apart from this apparent show-stopper, this set of icons appears to me to be "unfinished", as if they are merely initial "sketches."  If they are somehow deemed not to violate NPOV, then they should be optional.
 * 31) Anthony Liekens 08:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) There's no need for icons, and the ones that are used now are amazingly awful. If so many people vote against icons, then why is there still a link from the main page to this page?

It is unacceptable to have icons in Wikipedia and Main Page
--24.0.39.17 18:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This VOTE Is MEANINGLESS and Does NOT Reflect What the MAJORITY Believes
The vote just shows what a very limited number of people more involved in the project think, not the vast majority of users. It's as if you were to poll the Bush administration on manners of Iraq, Osama bin laden on what he thinks of America or journalists on social issues, this does not usually reflect the opinion of the general public. The general public does not even edit Wikipedia, why would you expect that they would go about and edit some obscure page in development when the current TOC works. Do you really think they will care enough to not only view the TOC with icons, but read through the discussion area and voice their opinions? I highly doubt it as the majority does not even vote for who they want to be president.

Most people prefer icons and Wikipedia should reflect that. Icons cannot be completely appropriate for each section of the TOC, but it does add some life to it, improves its look and provides a symbol that most can relate to. No symbol can be fullproof however, there are always people with different backgrounds and views which will not associate a symbol which seems clear to us to a particular section. Any symbol that is used to convey a number of ideas will be inherently POV and inaccurate, even Wikipedia's book built into the design and it's symbol are POV and can be considered inaccurate, but few would want to remove them. However, even for most of those people, in the future, they will know what that symbol means on Wikipedia and find what their looking for with less effort. --Exigentsky 07:56, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comparing us to Osama bin Laden is not going to win you any points. Neither is yelling at us in your headings. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about!? I did not compare anyone here to Osama, it was just an example that showed that it is ridiculous to go by a poll when your polling base is very small and specific. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my post in such a twisted and wrong way. The thing is that the people who would actually respond in this obscure "poll" have been long time Wikipedia members who are more involved with Wikipedia than most people and so do not indicate what the majority of Wikipedia visitors wish. They already know the sections of the TOC well, they do not need icons, it is pointless for them. Everyone I've asked so far that has seen Wikipedia for the first time said that they would prefer Wikipedia had a TOC with icons.

In addition, I did not "yell" at anybody, that is kind of hard to do through a web browser. I did not put any exlamation marks as would be common in online "yelling" either. I simply meant to highlight the most important words of the title since it was rather long. Before caps meant yelling they only meant emphasis. Would you prefer that I bold and lowercase those words? That would serve the same purpose too. --Exigentsky 03:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * And you know what the majority prefers how? kcar1986 03:23, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I polled about 60 people which have never visited the site before on whether they would prefer icons or not and they all said that icons would look nicer but 9 thought the icons need serious work. --Exigentsky 03:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the vote is meaningless and does not reflect the opinion fo the majority of Wikipedia visitors.


 * 1) --Exigentsky 07:56, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Exigentsky - if you don't believe the vote, read the comments. They are largely against the proposal, and many of them back up what they say with a wide range of reasons: miscategorisation, usability, simplicity, wikipedia philosophy, etc.  Very few of the comments SHOUT at me in ALL CAPS (on the 'net, this is commonly interpreted as yelling, triggering most people's inbuilt spam filter as the signal-to-noise ratio plummets).  Yes, sure, the comments and the vote are from a self-selected minority -- those who feel passionately for something or passionately against it.  This is how voting works just about everywhere except in Australia.  This idea is a long way from prime-time, and (IMO) may never make it. -- Andrew Kepert 04:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Please reread my complaint. It is not that I wish for one person or two to dicate every choice on Wikipedia. I think it should be a democracy and it should be based on majority, but my beef is that this poll is too obscure for most visitors to bother with. It should be a simple poll and not hidden in the discussion section.

Also, I did not yell, I had no exclamation marks and the caps were irregular. As I have told you before, the words I wanted to emphasize were capitalized. --Exigentsky


 * Whilst a poll may not be perfect it is infinitely preferable to leaving the decision to someone who says I know what most people are thinking, and it is different to the outcome of the vote. What if any other democracy were to say that?  --bodnotbod 17:45, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the gist of what Exigentsky says. I recall a Slashdot story asking what elements make up a good web design.  The vast majority of comments were against anything graphical, and it seemed like to them the best web page would be created using a text file. I think it is safe to assume that most web users would prefer HTML and graphics over plaintext files. Of course that was all my POV, but I think a voluntary response poll about something mostly based on taste, carried out among a very small particular audience, should be regarded more for curiosity's sake rather than for a democratic decision.


 * P.S. Wikipedia has been called "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built." &#9992; James C. 19:16, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Thoughts on the icons

 * The one for Nature is excellent.
 * The one for Technology is conceptually fine, although 2 interlocking gears might be better.
 * The one for Humans/Health is excellent.
 * The one for Society is decent, although i think a group of stick-people (like the humans/health one) would be better, if feasible
 * The one for Religion/Culture/Art is decent, I personally can't think of any improvements, Perhaps a caricature of Rodin's The Thinker, more for what it represents than for what it is, although this may not be multi-cultural enough.
 * Hobbies and Entertainment is excellent.

All in all, I'd say have them go live on the main page and then they can be changed if people want to.

Lastly, I don't like the concept of using colored/shaped bullets instead of icons, the choice would be too arbitrary, and not representative at all. In general, I think things that are categorized by colors/shapes when they don't need to be are oversimplified and detract meaning.

siroxo 13:16, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of a "Da Vinci Man" Style Icon for Humans/Health??? I cant do it, but i would like to see it here. -- morem


 * Welcome to try! Kenny 20:13, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Spirit and Soul
I am very glad the icons have transparent backgrounds now - but am incredibly disgruntled at one of the categories being called "Spirit and Soul" of all things! I can only see one thing in the subcategory list with anything to do with spirit and soul - religion. It is a very very tiny part of philosophy; and nothing, at all, to do with anything else. I largely spend my lively hood immersed in Culture, Fine arts, and Philosophy and would certainly be quite offended if someone described my life as being to do with "Spirit and Soul" - for it has nothing to do with either. - User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 09:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you think is common for Culture, Fine arts, and Philosophy? Kenny 10:56, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)


 * Nothing, this should be why we call it Religion, Culture, Fine arts, and Philosophy. --Oldak Quill 20:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. As an atheist, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a soul, and I cetainly don't see what it has to do with Culture, Fine Art, etc. Scurra 23:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Society and State
I think the building icon conveys this message better and more clearly. The flag there reminds me of racecars, certainly not of society, or bureocratic governments.

Anyway, except for the flag symbol, I think the icons are ready for primetime. --Exigentsky 02:54, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Page move
Are'nt discussions supposed to move with a redirect? Is this a bug in the new skin/layout?!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Wikipediatoc_with_icons --AY 18:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the move function doesnt move the talk: pages... at least I dont think so. KirbyMeister 10:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it should. But first you have to manually instruct it to bring the talk page along:) \Mikez 09:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, where should I put my votes? I would prefer the leaf as the icon for nature...

Stop changing the text
The name of this page is Wikipediatoc with icons. If you want to change the toc go to Wikipediatoc; don't do it here. This page is for adding icons to the existing toc. PS. All the changes that were made to the text on this page were for the worse. Bensaccount 23:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is the page protected?
I would like to know because some of the artists are being hindered by this. --Exigentsky 03:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why are the icons live?
Did somebody misunderstand the comparison between the 13 votes for the icons at they stand, and the 30 votes against the icons? Why are there icons on the main page? - Mark 03:34, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes because of this. Exigentsky apparently thinks his opinion is more important than the result of the vote. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If you had read above, I polled more people than responded here, tehey were all new users and their answer was positive. --Exigentsky
 * You know what, I polled 2000 other people and they don't like the idea of icons. Oh, and I'm not giving you any proof of this poll either. Come on Exigentsky, let's take polling a little bit more serious, can we? If you have 60 people who like the idea of icons, then why didn't these people vote here? Personally, I think your argument (comparing us to the Bush administration) is false. --Anthony Liekens 08:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Icons as a User Preference?
Would it be too much trouble to have icon display be controlled by a user preference, and perhaps have them turned on by default? Regarding the latter point: having them turned on by default would help solicit far more comments on the icon appearances. James C. 07:43, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Just "Math"?
Why are all the sciences stuck under "Math"? And although I call it "math", others say "maths". So at the very least, it should say "Mathematics", and more likely should say "Science and Mathematics". -- brian0918 &#153;   16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - I for one say 'Maths' and the full accepted form is 'Mathematics'. In now encyclopedia would there be an entry for Math/Maths 81.156.216.124 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Dead?
Hello. I'm a little confused. What is Template:Wikipediatoc with icons? Is it dead? Nothing really links there. I got there from Entertainment which links to Pastime index although it probably shouldn't. Pastime index might be mistaken for an article, the note at the bottom is probably insufficient to alert editors that it's intended for a special use (see Talk:Pastime index). Perhaps it could be moved to a subpage to make this more clear e.g. Template:Wikipediatoc with icons/Pastime index? Or should this all just be deleted? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that Spirit and soul index has been deleted, almost a year ago, along with some of the icons  . Ewlyahoocom 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)