Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Nobel icon

Consensus?
I have seen this icon being added and removed repeatedly from pages, for instance Nelson Mandela. I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that the Nobel Prize (in this case the Nobel Peace Prize) is a major award, or even *the* major award in its field, but clearly there is disagreement about whether it should be used. I would like to know if there has been any discussion about whether it should be included in this way. I would like to add my opinion by saying No. From a layout point of view, it seems like a distracting gimick. It is not especially useful, because someone has to click on it to find out what it is. The fact that someone is a Nobel prize winner is typically mentioned with a link in the lead paragraph anyway. Zaian (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created this template only to try to standardize the icons (Image:Nobel_prize_medal.svg vs. Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg) and to fix a weird line break issue that resulted from click being used. I personally don't care if this template is used or deleted (or rather, if Nobel icons are included in infoboxes or not), but I do agree that consensus is sorely needed going forward. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Zaian - I don't see what it adds to the infobox, I don't see why the Nobel Prize in particular should be illustrated in infoboxes (and I certainly don't want to see a proliferation of such images so some notable figures have a whole slew of little images), and I don't think it's a particularly recognizable image in and of itself, especially at that small size. --Stormie (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if the template creator doesn't support the use of this in the info boxes, then who does? Where's the consensus for this?  When did it start?  I checked out two of these at random (Sadat and Gorbachev) and found that both of them first got the medal added next to their name on October 12 of last year.  Looks like some editors just got went ahead and did this, and those of us who are noticing it now are somehow vandals if we disapprove.  Well, for the record, I disapprove.  Here's why (off the top of my head; maybe I'll think of more later):
 * The medal is distracting next to the name. I mean, that's just not how we read, normally, with pictures inserted like that.  If you want it in the infobox, perhaps that can be done, but not at the top, not right next to the name.  It looks weird and is wholly unnecessary.
 * It violates WP:NPOV. Look, the Nobels are big time awards, no doubt.  So too are the Oscars.  Are we going to put pictures of Oscars next to names?  What about Emmys?  Hmmmm.  Not quite as big as Oscars, but where to draw the line?  And what about Congressional Medals of Honor next to the few brave souls who have won those by risking their lives for others?  Ahhhh, but that's quite clearly only an American thing, so that wouldn't be appropriate, right?  My point here is that when we place the Nobel image here, we elevate it above all other awards, and the only alternative would be to include images of all these others, lest we violate NPOV.  Maybe you could say that only international awards would go up.  But what is international today?  Aren't the Oscars international?  What about the Golden Globes?  See the problem?
 * That's enough for now. I'd like to hear other opinions. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing a Nobel to an Oscar. Classic. (I mean Hollywood runs the world, doesn't it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.114.135 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "if the template creator doesn't support the use of this in the info boxes, then who does?" You're drastically missing the point. The editors who added the icon wanted it there. And there are about 500 pages that it's being used on, which assumes quite a few editors agree. My point is that I personally don't care about the issue, I was simply standardizing the icons and fixing a technical issue related to them. As to the editorial decision of whether or not to include them, that's up to the community. Personally, I don't care either way. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Awhile back, there was a template, similar to this one, denoting a baseball player's induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. It was a tiny square placard that was placed around the second paragraph of the article, which is very similar to the way this template is being used (although this one is placed in the infobox). Anyway, the Hall of Fame template was deleted, and instead the infobox listed the honor (in text form, like Academy Awards are also done) and a navbox was added at the bottom. Maybe that is the way to go with this template; a navbox already exists, so why not just add a collapsible section to the infobox (when appropriate, of course) titled "Awards" or something. Hope this helps. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Formatting and NPOV I don't know how much I have to add, but I will say this: I don't like how a Nobel image is used with a white background; that is distracting, especially when the infobox has a non-grey background itself. A Nobel is clearly the tops in its field, so I would be fine with adding a similar attribute for Oscars or Grammys, personally as those are the equivalent of Nobels to performers. I don't think that it is POV to show a picture of a Nobel inside of an infobox, though. The notion of having a collapsible awards section is fine and well, but these articles have a variety of infoboxes (person, scientist, cleric, etc.) so they would have to be added to all of them - not exactly an argument against the proposal, but a consideration should it be implemented. For what it's worth, I don't plan on following the conversation, so please let me know if someone wants my opinion again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, MZMcBride, for clarifying that. You're right, I did misunderstand you.  Now to answer the points made above:
 * there are about 500 pages that it's being used on, which assumes quite a few editors agree. Actually, it could be the work of only two or three editors, and others are simply passively accepting the practice.  My problem with this is that when a practice like this starts and is not contested, it becomes de facto policy, without ever having been the subject of discussion by the community.  No one has been able to point out where this issue was discussed, which means it may never have been discussed at all, which means that this practice should not be given the imprint of a community-approved policy.
 * A Nobel is clearly the tops in its field, so I would be fine with adding a similar attribute for Oscars or Grammys, personally as those are the equivalent of Nobels to performers. But Justin], is it really so clear that the Oscar is tops in it's field? Are you so sure that the [[Palme d'Or is not at least as presitgious?  And I daresay that many American television performers would be more excited about a Golden Globe than they would over an Emmy, due to its European angle.  So no, it's not always clear.
 * I think Tombstone is on to something akin to an answer. I would object far less if various awards were listed in the infobox as text, either a collapsable section or not.  I mean, just as we list a politicians offices in the infobox, we can do the same with awards.
 * I mean (and I'm really scared to mention this, for fear that someone is going to do this), what if we placed a similarly-sized Presidential seal in the infoboxes of American presidents right next to their name. Wouldn't most of us think that was silly?  I mean, the fact that the dude was president will come out in the first paragraph or more likely the first sentence of the article.  Is this image really necessary?  Are we going to have image clutter around the name?  Theodore Roosevelt with a nobel, the presidential seal, and all the other awards and honors that he was probably awarded, all clustered around his name?  Let's get a grip here and think about where this could be heading.  Let's just list these awards in the text of the infoboxes. HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am copying three comments below which were previously posted on Talk:Nobel Peace Prize. Zaian (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of having a hyperlinked image of the prize in each laureate's page next to their name. What makes this prize so special that it has placement priority over all of the other information on these pages, effectively drawing attention away from more important details, including the article itself?  What makes the prize so special that only this prize is included as a hyperlinked image, and not, say, one for an Academy Award?  It's not like this is a prize handed down from the heavens that distinguishes the human from the divine.  The fact that there is a "controversy" section in this article that includes arguments about how some people should have gotten the award and others shouldn't have further suggests that this prize lacks the absolute authority in moral labeling that the placement priority of the hyperlinked images seem to suggest.  I always thought Wikipedia was starting to overload on the number of useless little attachments one could add to an article, and now I'm convinced that this hyperlinked image means things are going a bit overboard.  I suggest it should be taken down, or at least moved to a more suitable place in the article and as a simple text hyperlink.--216.165.32.224 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's silly, but good luck in fighting it. Wikipedia has more than its share of folks who like adding decorative gadgets and other extraneous templates to articles, as the overuse of flag icons demonstrates. The inclusion of the Nobel Prize icon at the top of prizewinners' articles is Wikipedia at its dumbest, but making even common sense changes can be an uphill battle when it involves limiting gadget usage. I hope someone with enough time and energy does try to eliminate the Nobel Prize silliness, and I wish them luck. —Kevin Myers 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the icons have been oddly kept in a number of Nobel Peace Laureates, I began to delete some of them but there is a particular user who is adamant that they should be left even though they shouldnt be there when we refer to these guides infobox writer, infobox scientist. I think the icon should be restricted to the information below the image under the awards title. Someone111111 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue was previously discussed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 97. The discussion didn't reach a conclusion. Zaian (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't start coding articles using codes for which the meaning is not immediately apparent to an uninvolved reader. If the reader has to click the icon to see even what it represents it would simply be easier to write in the infobox "Nobel prize".  If you take for example Cape Lion, the article uses symbols which help the animal article enthusiast to quickly identify the conservation status, but just underneath the symbol it has a line of text which explains the symbol for people who know nothing perhaps, of how wikipedia works.  Also on a side note when making first contact with someone it helps if you don't threaten to block and ban them ...  Jackaranga (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with pretty much all of the above comments, and again, I'd like to point out, we still have no evidence of a discussion which led to the establishment of this practice. I'm getting closer to the point where I would suggest these icons are, indeed, removable. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW I also think these things should be deleted. They are rather silly. Perhaps something much smaller could be considered. --BozMo talk 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to be consistent with its approach to providing and formatting its information. The Nobel Peace Prize is significant but as an award it should be placed under the "Awards Won" heading in the infobox. This ensures consistency and the templates Wikipedians should be following. I have confronted a particular user who claims there is consistency amongst the peace laureates as they all have an icon, but this claim is misleading. I searched through multiple peace laureates who do not such as Jimmy Carter and others. I have also tried multiple times to delete the icons but there is still re-editing. Like a previous user has noted, though the award is significant, by allowing this icon to be placed inappropriately risks causing other prizes to be seen as significant. For example, Meryl Streep name may have Academy Award Icon and Golden Globe Award, Emmy Icon, even in the worse case scenario be given separate icons for best actress and best supporting actress. Ultimately greatly hindering Wikipedia's ability to provide concise and consistent Someone111111 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I came across this implementation (albeit, as a click) at Al Gore and assumed it was vandalism of some fashion--certainly nobody would be inserting images into the name field of an infobox. I was wrong. I'll transpose my comments from Talk:Al Gore:"I was surprised to find an icon next to this infobox's title. Based on general infobox precedent, is it to be assumed that either (a) this BLP's name is 'Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. Gold Coin' or that (b) the icon's intent and meaning is universally recognized and understood as next to somebody's name? Is there a published SOP or MoS dictating this confusing iconage/coinage?"As for the image's use lower in an infobox, I lean towards dissuasion, if only that it would set precedent for any/all "important awards" to have their images in the infoboxes leading to a glut of imagery in what is supposed to be a lean and svelte concision of important stats. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC) lol, a crusade should begin, "The Culling of the Nobel Icons", i have tried arguing with ppl about the validity of the icons, and they argue back but they end up avoiding the issue, refusing to allow my deletion of the icon despite having exhausted any possible arguments against such a move. I think, the deletion of the icons should be done discretely, beginning with the earliest peace laureates who do not gain much attention from supporters of the icons. It is obvious many contributors agree about the icons inappropriateness.Someone111111 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am greatly disappointed to inform that whilst I was deleting icons from 1901 to 1929, i found another rogue icon. There was a Medal of Honour Icon beside Theodor Roosevelt's name, but also with a Nobel Peace Prize.Someone111111 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've WP:BOLDly removed Nobel icons from six laureates' pages, citing an edit summary of Remove Nobel icons per consensus at Template talk:Nobel icon > as a means of starting the process and also of calling broader attention to this discussion. If no objections are raised I'll probably begin a more large-scale removal later tonight and would appreciate help in that regard. I strongly encourage anyone who does so to use my edit summary above, or a similar one, as it will alert later editors to the existence of this discussion and help to avoid revert warring. Of course, if significant dissent develops, please stop until consensus develops. --Clubjuggle T / C  19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This has come a long way since I got my head bit off less than a week ago for removing these icons. I am very happy to see the progress we have made here.  A few observations.
 * We shouldn't do anything by stealth.  We have done an excellent job of moving toward consensus here, that has been done openly, and we should continue to be open.  Anything else is anti-Wikipedian (though I understand why it may also appear appealing at first).
 * I think that there is a standard to wait a week for people to comment before establishing consensus. Otherwise we could be accused of jumping the gun.  So I'd wait a while before mass removal.  But that's just my opinion.
 * I think that User:Clubjuggle's edit summary would be excellent for everyone to use.
 * I'm prepared to be bold enough to suggest that once we establish our consensus here that that would be enough to justify removing other medalic icons in the infoboxes, such as the "rogue" icons mentioned by User:Someone111111.
 * I don't think the icons should just be moved to the bottom of the infoboxes, I prefer their removal altogether, for reasons like the glut that some (including myself) have referred to.
 * I'm really happy to have been a small part of making this a better encyclopedia! HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any standard, outside of WP:RFA, for waiting a week before declaring a consensus. That is not to say that no such standard exists, just that I've never encountered it. In any case, I think we have to look at this as kind of a unique circumstance. Since this discussion is not taking place (and indeed can't take place) on the talk pages of the affected articles, there are many interested editors who will not be aware of its existence until we start implementing changes. That's why WP:BRD states that one of the purposes of WP:BOLD editing is to attract the interested editors to the discussion. Right now, it's extremely unlikely that consensus among the current group will change. The next logical step is to apply (and therefore test) that perceived consensus by applying it, slowly and deliberately at first, to see whether any serious dissent emerges as additional editors are made aware of the existence of this discussion.
 * Yesterday, I removed the templates from Erwin Schrödinger‎, Aung San Suu Kyi‎, Aage Niels Bohr, André Gide, Alexis Carrel‎ and Albert Einstein. None have been reverted. It probably makes sense to hit a few high-profile articles today and see whether that triggers any objections. Good candidates are probably the Peace Prize winners from 2007 (Al Gore and the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2002, Jimmy Carter, 2001 (Kofi Annan and the United Nations), 1994 (Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin) and 1979 Mother Teresa). Most of those are very high-visibility articles -- the couple that are not are included so as not to remove the icons from one winner in a given year but not another. --Clubjuggle T / C  12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support removing these icons. Using text is preferable in a resource primarily aimed at adults. --John (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support/Endorse removal - I agree. To a non-Wikipedian reading the page it looks like a Wikipedian endorsement/award.  «  Diligent Terrier    (talk)   23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then, let's go for it. I still think a week is a courteous standard, because there are many editors, I'm sure, whose schedules allow them only one day a week to edit.  But the consensus we have built here does appear overwhelming, and we can always discuss it further if we are challenged. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been moving forward slowly. Sunday evening my time (EDT/UTC-5) I did the pages of the Peace Prize winners I listed above. Only one got reverted back (by an editor that was invited to this discussion on his talk page on the 29th but may have missed the invite); it has since been re-reverted by another editor who re-pointed him here. --Clubjuggle T/ C 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe a MfD might be the best way forward on this, unless someone is willing to be bold and remove the template from every article. « Diligent Terrier    (talk)   23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the bold thing, but slowly at first, to make sure we've properly gauged consensus. My plan is to work toward removing it from all pages and then prod the template. --Clubjuggle T/ C 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the icon from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. That article is getting a very high level of traffic since the subject died yesterday. If that removal hold, we can probably WP:MfD or even WP:PROD the template. --Clubjuggle T/ C 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dumb question: What's the rationale for choosing WP:MfD over WP:TfD? --Clubjuggle T/ C 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Extent of consensus
Have we agreed to remove these just when they appear next to the name, or to remove all of the images in infoboxes? Myself, I think all the images should be removed in favor of text. Some of these people have three icons in their infoboxes (I saw one where the person who was the subject of the article had their doctoral advisor listed in the infobox, with a Nobel icon next to his name. Some people have three icons in the box! HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MfD? I think that - as proposed above - an MfD is the only consensus to be reached. I know that some of these are being added back (e.g.) and if you delete them all and they get added back slowly, that does nothing for anyone. As long as this template exists, it will be used. If the template does not exist, it cannot be used. For what it's worth, I'm probably a "weak keep" kind of voter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that counts as a revert. MZMcBride, the editor who made the change, participated in this discussion earlier and said "I was simply standardizing the icons and fixing a technical issue related to them. As to the editorial decision of whether or not to include them, that's up to the community. Personally, I don't care either way." Zaian (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also favor deleting and removing the template, but they should be standardized first. So, no, that does not count as a revert. « Diligent Terrier    (talk)   13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that after much hard work from editors who have contributed, all the nobel peace icons placed beside the names in the infoboxes have been temporarily deleted!!! Hopefully, this outcome can be maintained. Someone111111 (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this is part of the standardization process mentioned above. «  Diligent Terrier    (talk)   13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The real reason why I think that the Nobel Icon should be left and kept because Nobel prize is a prestigious award that is merely hurting anyone. It is easier for the eyes to catch and know that this person got a Nobel Prize and force the eager people to know he/she got the Nobel Prize in what exactly did they get for? And how where they raised to get to that point.

I discovered that many of the Nobel Prize winners their award is not mentioned on the InfoBox. No one, or at least most people, don't know every single person who got the award and why they got it for. It's good to know why they got it and why it's good.

If you guys want to remove it then I agree with Koavf delete the template and all your problems are done, but don't expect that every single person in the whole world wouldn't try to put it on again and again.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdowiki (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Abdowiki, it seems you have disregarded the arguments placed by the contributors to this discussion. But i do not think, Koav's argument of him just "liking it" and convenience is sufficient against the support for the deletion of the icons has gained. Furthermore Nobel Icons can still be viewed and discovered by new readers, if they read under the "Awards Won" title of the infobox, and if it isnt there you may want to add it yourself or encourage others to do so. As editors we can not deem an award as being more prestigious than others, this would make wikipedia bias, we can though, place them under the Awards Won, allowing reader to decide for themselves. And the users do not expect "every single person" not to put it on again, but if there is opposition, we can discuss and return to this template to re-iterate the reasons for the icons deletion.Someone111111 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Informal survey to confirm consensus
Should the templates be removed from all articles, and the template deleted?


 * Yes « Diligent Terrier    (talk)   13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes --Clubjuggle T/ C 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Zaian (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry for showing up late, but I just learned that this discussion existed. If you want to make a decision affecting a large number of articles, you should have a larger discussion. Start an RfC perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't that where WP:BRD comes in? Multiple editors have made significant effort to draw others into the discussion. Now that you're here, feel free to weigh in above. --Clubjuggle T/ C 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since all that's involved is the removal of a non-Wikipedia like template, it's not necessary to bring this to a larger venue unless there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Gamaliel, you never provided a reason for why you're against this, all you said is that it needs to go to a larger venue.  «  Diligent Terrier    (talk)   15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as can be inferred from my comments above. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, for all the reasons given above. It's sufficient to note the award in the lead section of the article.  Polemarchus (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely Someone111111 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated earlier in this discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, along the lines of some of the arguments at WP:FLAGS, using symbology like this is unnecessary, unencyclopedic, dumbs the project down, and gives undue weight to the Nobels. What about Emmys, Oscars, Booker prizes, etc etc? Should they all have little symbols too? Words are better in an encyclopedia for adults. --John (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am against removing the Noble Icon as it is not hurting anyone. But as another alternative all InfoBox should have the award type, award date. Some of the Nobel Prize receivers don't even have an InfoBox and that would be a great asset to add it to all Nobel Prize receivers on Wikipedia. Thanks Abdowiki (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: many editors have given good reasons why not to include the icon. They do "hurt" in the sense that they add clutter and reduce readability. The information they convey is better carried in text form in the infobox. Zaian (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes to the former with regard to infoboxes; I'm ambivalent as to the latter. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No keep icon. I find it very useful to see the icon when I'm browsing through biographies. It creates immediate impact.Bletchley (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThough your involvement in the discussion is encouraged, your argument that it is useful to "you" in particular does not necessarily mean it is useful to the majority of others. Immediate impact is not needed necessarily right next to the laureates either, people who are reading the article on the laureate have obviously clicked onto the laureate with a purpose of finding out more. Most infoboxes will have a smaller section detailing the award and the introduction to the person will also usually include "Nobel Winner".Someone111111 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment The real point of the Nobel icons is being missed in this discussion. Let me clarify. See for example William Henry Bragg. As can be seen here the icons provide, at a quick glance, a way of seeing which of his students were Nobel prize winners. It's also useful putting the icon next to the declaration of his own prize so that new readers can quickly see what the icon represents. It is all well thought-out by the creators of the icon. Notice also that the Nobel icon has been adopted by quite a number of foreign language wikipedia's, so it is gaining global consensus :-) There is more to it than meets the eye at first.Bletchley (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - How does that carry out if we start seeing a proliferation of icons for things like Emmys, Pulitzer Prizes, the Presidential medal of freedom, Purple Hearts, etc. Where do we draw the line? Clubjuggle T/ C 14:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Reply to comment LOL, I must admit that my true objections to the icon was only in regards to it being placed beside the winners name on the top of the infobox and my goal of reaching a consensus in this template was to address the placing of the icons there. In regards to it being place below the awards won, i do not have any great objections but I think it is just safer to remove the icon otherwise contributors in the future will move it to the top of the infobox next to the name. Someone111111 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: I actually agree with you that the icon at the top looks silly & superfluous. Though that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't worry, I will help you guys delete the icon at the top of infoboxes, if you help me to retain them in the proper place lower down the infobox.Bletchley (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Removal is a straightforward improvement. --BozMo talk 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The Nobel is one of the most, if not the most, well-known and important prizes in the world.

Threats of blocking or banning
For the record, Justin didn't actually threaten to block or ban me, he said that my removal of these icons was likely to result in that. His participation indicates to me that he has acted in good faith, and was merely trying to help me by warning me what someone, perhaps someone else, would do. I'm presuming a friendly intent on his part. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely I don't have the power to block or ban anyway, so it should be immaterial, but I was offering friendly advice rather than provocation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed RFC attempt
''Note: The discussion below originated with an attempt to list an RFC. The RfC was never listed due to unknown technical issues, however some visitors to the page did initiate a discussion, which is listed below. --Clubjuggle T/ C 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)''

At issue is whether Nobel icons should be removed from the infoboxes of laurates' articles and this template deleted. To date, Nobel icons (scaled versions of the Nobel prize medal) have appeared in various articles, usually next to the laureate's name (for example, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) or in some cases in an awards section (for example, Max Planck). Significant discussion exists above, however due to the scope of the change it was suggested that we should more actively seek additional opinions.


 * Weak keep Personally, I like them and I think that they are somewhat useful to readers and editors (they would be especially useful if, say, they auto-added a person into a category of Nobel winners.) I am not deeply invested in the issue, but I still don't think the NPOV argument is very strong. If these are to be removed, though, please delete this template, or else it will be added back. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I find the icons a very useful visual guide giving me immediacy as to who is a Nobel or not.Bletchley (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bletchley versus Clubjuggle Debate
In light of your claim of no consensus, I'm curious if you read the arguments in the full discussion section at Template talk:Nobel icon that preceded the "informal vote". In particular I'm interested in your response to the argument of how this would be handled if people started applying this to other awards, such as the Emmy, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Purple heart, etc. If you would be willing to respond to these questions at the template talk page I would be grateful. Also, given that the discussion is, at the moment, running heavily in favor of removal, it does seem rather counterproductive to add the icon to twenty-some pages, without using edit summaries immediately after posting to the discussion. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/ C 09:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Dear Clubjugs, here are my responses:
 * 1. Regarding Emmy, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Purple heart, etc.  My response would be that each has to reach a concensus on a case by case basis. That is the way wiki works. Whether I personally would like icon for those prizes or not isn't relevant. I am only a tiny insignificant cog in the concensus machine.


 * 2. Yes, I have seen the preceeding arguments. However, they miss the real point of the Nobel icons. The point is as follows: each scientist infobox contains many names: students, influences, and advisors. The icon provides at a quick glance which of these also have the Nobel.


 * 3. Re: Edit summaries. My bad, I was in a hurry. No nefariousness intended.


 * 4. Re: "running heavily in favor of removal." This is quite invalid. It is an informal vote. I was totally unaware of this discussion until now. I'm sure many thousands of editors who love the icon, also are unaware. You need to invite wider discussion in order to get a true concensus. I do not regard a minor cabal as a consensus :-) The fact is that many foreign language versions of wiki have adopted the Nobel icon approach. We are not alone.Bletchley (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2000 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate then. To clarify item #3, I was referring to the section above, not the informal vote section, which I did not create and don't endorse. Also, no worries on the edit summaries. It was by no means interpreted as an attmept to be sneaky. --Clubjuggle T/ C  14:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentI'm disappointed by Bletchley's answer to #1 as I think this goes to the heart of the issue. If you support adding the Nobel icon to articles, then either you think there's something unique about the Nobel Prize that places it in a different category from things like the Grammy, the Fields Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or you think we should have icons for other awards as well.  If Nobel icons become accepted practice, it's only a matter of time before people start adding little Oscar statuettes into thousands of Hollywood articles.  Maybe that's a good idea and maybe we'll ultimately arrive at a consensus that that's the way forward, but I think it's reasonable to ask those who support the Nobel icon whether they think their arguments apply only to this special case or to all notable awards.  Polemarchus (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyI only edit scientist articles. I am not into Hollywood. In wikiland each area must get its own consensus. If you look at the historical archives of the Scientist Infobox you'll see there was a huge resistance in the early days to keep it. Luckily, it got kept, in the end, after a huge debate and now most editors like it. However, hypothetically, if the Scientist Infobox was voted out this would not be grounds for automatically deleting them in Hollywood articles. By symmetry, this argument applies to inclusions of future templates. What works for one pool of articles, doesn't automatically apply to another. Each area must reach it's own consensus. This is WP.Bletchley (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? It's the freaking Nobel Prize. Comparing it to a Grammy is incredibly foolish, not to mention logically fallacious. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon
Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eustress (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the icon outside of the deleted template
Although the icon was deleted on August 16 after the August 5 nomination, the icon can still be used outside on the template manually by adding the image to the infobox. (example) There is now a discussion about prohibiting the use of the Nobel icon and related icons at WT:MOS. (link) Your opinion is welcome. Cheers, « Diligent Terrier    [talk]   21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be stopped, as it is contrary to consensus. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As of yesterday, all such cases had been removed. Unless any have been reverted, this is no longer an issue. --Clubjuggle T/ C 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except when people come back and insert it again. That one was removed and consensus on the article talk page was to leave it off. But see also File:Nobel prize medal.svg File links, for where it currently appears, if anyone cares. Tvoz / talk 18:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Main Page
Template:Main Page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected
Please add the protection template to this template, so the protection icon is visible. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Let's see what happens with Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 8. No point in adding an icon if it's just going to be deleted. Anomie⚔ 13:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)