Template talk:Wikipediatoc with icons

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 fĺag 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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (さばくのきつね) 02:42, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

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

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)[reply]

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 [[image:smiley.png|icon|]] and we would have to put up with them cropping up on other pages. Andrew Kepert 04:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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 ;-) — Matt 08:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Nguyễn (talk, blog) 20:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 like icons

I don't like icons

Darklight 26 May 2004
213.253.40.46, unless the implementation is much better than this
ropers 26 May 2004
[[User:81.226.106.103]visitor], 26 May 2004
--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.
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.
fonzy