Please leave suggests here.
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)
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.
Friends, please compare and contribute:
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)
PSP dosen't support alpha channel transparency in .PNG's yet.
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)
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)
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 [[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)
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:
Sorry, I prefer it without the icons ;-) — Matt 08:19, 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 Nguyễn ( 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
Looks, IE have problems in rendering png with transparent colors.
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
I've changed flag and smilely icon. ( File:Smiley icon2.png File:Flag icon2.png) 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. ✏ Sverdrup 20:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
Added door,
, toc page is protected, I can't update!
Kenny
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.
-- 24.0.39.17 18:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
I believe the vote is meaningless and does not reflect the opinion fo the majority of Wikipedia visitors.
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like to know because some of the artists are being hindered by this. -- Exigentsky 03:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
™
16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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 [1] [2] [3]. Ewlyahoocom 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please leave suggests here.
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)
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.
Friends, please compare and contribute:
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)
PSP dosen't support alpha channel transparency in .PNG's yet.
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)
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)
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 [[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)
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:
Sorry, I prefer it without the icons ;-) — Matt 08:19, 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 Nguyễn ( 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
Looks, IE have problems in rendering png with transparent colors.
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
I've changed flag and smilely icon. ( File:Smiley icon2.png File:Flag icon2.png) 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. ✏ Sverdrup 20:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
Added door,
, toc page is protected, I can't update!
Kenny
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.
-- 24.0.39.17 18:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
I believe the vote is meaningless and does not reflect the opinion fo the majority of Wikipedia visitors.
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like to know because some of the artists are being hindered by this. -- Exigentsky 03:33, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
™
16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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 [1] [2] [3]. Ewlyahoocom 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)