Wikipedia talk:Icon standardization
Nice proposal so far
editCourtesy ping Sdkb as they may be interested in further refining this proposal before it can become an RfC. Aasim 00:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping! The big challenge that I see is coming up with a set of icons large enough to take over as the new standard. In order to achieve its aim rather than just become another competing standard, it'll need to be adopted comprehensively. But that could be hard. Here's an example: Template:Nutshell currently uses File:Walnut.png. I don't think the OOUI library has a nutshell icon. So how do you want to handle that? If your solution is to just swap it out for another, probably less relevant icon, there would probably be community opposition from people who are used to and like the nutshell icon. There are a lot of examples like that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the proposal itself, it might be helpful to lay out some principles. E.g. why it's preferable to user flat design rather than skeuomorphic design. Also, things like why is it that the C-class letter is a different stroke than the A/B-class letters? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. The "C" thing is simply odd, and it seems a little strange that an editor who has only been registered a couple of months should take over a proposal by a now-blocked editor, and to make the same assumption that we saw at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 168#Flat Design [capital "D" in original] that flat design is obviously better. Now, I'm impressed with my grandson's favourite TV programmes (Hey Duggee! and Peppa Pig), which both use flat design for characters and other animation elements, but this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia for adults, rather than something that follows every ephemeral trend for 15-month-olds, so we first need agreement that this is the way we want to go. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, I don't think there's anything necessarily childish about flat design (it's what Google uses for all their products, along with pretty much everyone else), but I like your longer-term thinking here. Maybe what we ought to do before we talk about switching to a new set of icons is just to build up a comprehensive database of icon usage in the first place, so that attempts to switch now or in the future will know which icons to replace. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. The "C" thing is simply odd, and it seems a little strange that an editor who has only been registered a couple of months should take over a proposal by a now-blocked editor, and to make the same assumption that we saw at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 168#Flat Design [capital "D" in original] that flat design is obviously better. Now, I'm impressed with my grandson's favourite TV programmes (Hey Duggee! and Peppa Pig), which both use flat design for characters and other animation elements, but this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia for adults, rather than something that follows every ephemeral trend for 15-month-olds, so we first need agreement that this is the way we want to go. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the proposal itself, it might be helpful to lay out some principles. E.g. why it's preferable to user flat design rather than skeuomorphic design. Also, things like why is it that the C-class letter is a different stroke than the A/B-class letters? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I think that it's a good proposal. The only thing that I would suggest would be amending the GA icon to File:Design plat Pour fort.svg or File:Design plat Pour.svg, mostly to keep the icons similar to their current appearance which may help with transitioning to the new design. Also, if you're looking for additional icons with a similarly flat design, c:Category:Emoji One might fit the bill as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Question mark book
edit@Sdkb: I don't know if you're still working on this, but could you redesign File:Question book-new.svg?
It currently looks like this:
And as the most-used image on Wikipedia its status as a 2008 eyesore detracts from the overall look of Wikipedia.
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson, I couldn't as I don't really have any strong graphical design skills (this is Lojbanist's proposal, not mine). My current view is that, unless someone good at graphical design comes along who is very dedicated and willing to put together a new set much more comprehensive than this (the question book icon is just another example of the nutshell problem I discussed above), proposals like this one are doomed.
- I think it's more fruitful in the short term to focus on the few icons that have the greatest need. I wouldn't place this in that category, since honestly it looks decent enough to me and it isn't reader-facing. Personally I'm focusing on the good and featured topicons, but if you're looking for something else, it might be fairly low-effort to remedy the discrepancy between e.g.
and 
and similar sets. I'm not sure I'd consider it really worth the time, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I think the design is quite dated with the gradient, question mark, and squiggled lines, but I'll see what I can do myself. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
