I agree than stub icons put a strain on servers, and for that reason, WP:WSS has reduced the use of icons on many large stub categories. Some icons, however, serve a definite purpose. A clear example is those on the five regional geography subs for African regions, and the geography stub for central america. The maps on these items clearly delimit what countris are meant to have those stub templates applied, and to a very great extent they work: Mexican subs, which might otherwise find themselves added to the Central American category, do not find themselves in that category; stubs relating to countries close to the line demarking the boundary between West and North Africa are placed in the correct category almost every time. In these cases the icons are a very useful addition to the stub templates. Grutness... wha? 05:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure geographic stub icons are useful. All stub icons are useful, if only to make it very clear that an article is incomplete. That's not the point. It isn't a question of useful-versus-not-useful. It's a question of whether the usefullness outweighs the anti-usefulness of not being able to browse stub categories -- which I often can't! ¶ I do agree that we need to hear from a developer before we proceed. ---- Isaac R 22:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Can we get a developer's opinion here please? It seems like a good idea in principle. R adiant _* 07:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Come to think of it, it does seen to have been handed down in Wiki lore that icons are a strain... about time we had some definitive info. Grutness... wha? 09:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Do any of the three of you know where to find a developer with the requisite knowledge to address this? Courtland 22:12, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
For some info about images in templates, see m:Image server overload 2005-03 and some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates by the main WikiMedia developer Jamesday. BlankVerse ∅ 13:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find it on a quick search, but somewhere Jamesday also talked about new hardware for the graphics server. I'd say that just as a precautionary measure, icons should be removed from any stub template that is on > 500 articles. BlankVerse ∅ 16:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I want to get into the habit of recommending "experiments" with the Wikipedia Database, but for gauging the impact of images in templates, it would probably be best to look at a small number of VERY popular templates (the Sister Templates?), and look at database performace with and without the images. I wonder if there is any sort of list of the most frequently used templates? (Also, I want to express a thanks to developer Tim Starling for helping to explain things.) BlankVerse ∅ 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The word from developers seems to be that, yes, template icons do impact performance -- but they're hoping to fix this. At this point I'm all for waiting to see if they can. But if it turns out they can't, I'm going to renew my original proposal. Which might be better phrased this way: eliminate all stub icons, not just "popular" or "not useful" ones, because it's too hard to identify which ones are popular or useful. Plus it creates bad feelings by users who see their favorite icons eliminated, while others continue to use them.
On the other hand, if it can be established that we can use template icons without bringing the image servers to their knees, I'd want to see an initiative to put icons in all stub templates. These icons are very useful not just for categorizing stubs, but for making casual readers aware that articles are incomplete. ---- Isaac R 18:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I placed the rejected template as I got the impression from the above that this is abandoned for the time being, until further details clarify the situation. Also removed from RfC Hiding 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has anything been decided? Has new information presented itself? Has it been decided that it is a good idea to remove images from stub templates?
On a related note ' Wikipedia:Signatures_should_not_contain_images'? -- Ec5618 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree than stub icons put a strain on servers, and for that reason, WP:WSS has reduced the use of icons on many large stub categories. Some icons, however, serve a definite purpose. A clear example is those on the five regional geography subs for African regions, and the geography stub for central america. The maps on these items clearly delimit what countris are meant to have those stub templates applied, and to a very great extent they work: Mexican subs, which might otherwise find themselves added to the Central American category, do not find themselves in that category; stubs relating to countries close to the line demarking the boundary between West and North Africa are placed in the correct category almost every time. In these cases the icons are a very useful addition to the stub templates. Grutness... wha? 05:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure geographic stub icons are useful. All stub icons are useful, if only to make it very clear that an article is incomplete. That's not the point. It isn't a question of useful-versus-not-useful. It's a question of whether the usefullness outweighs the anti-usefulness of not being able to browse stub categories -- which I often can't! ¶ I do agree that we need to hear from a developer before we proceed. ---- Isaac R 22:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Can we get a developer's opinion here please? It seems like a good idea in principle. R adiant _* 07:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Come to think of it, it does seen to have been handed down in Wiki lore that icons are a strain... about time we had some definitive info. Grutness... wha? 09:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Do any of the three of you know where to find a developer with the requisite knowledge to address this? Courtland 22:12, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
For some info about images in templates, see m:Image server overload 2005-03 and some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates by the main WikiMedia developer Jamesday. BlankVerse ∅ 13:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find it on a quick search, but somewhere Jamesday also talked about new hardware for the graphics server. I'd say that just as a precautionary measure, icons should be removed from any stub template that is on > 500 articles. BlankVerse ∅ 16:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I want to get into the habit of recommending "experiments" with the Wikipedia Database, but for gauging the impact of images in templates, it would probably be best to look at a small number of VERY popular templates (the Sister Templates?), and look at database performace with and without the images. I wonder if there is any sort of list of the most frequently used templates? (Also, I want to express a thanks to developer Tim Starling for helping to explain things.) BlankVerse ∅ 04:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The word from developers seems to be that, yes, template icons do impact performance -- but they're hoping to fix this. At this point I'm all for waiting to see if they can. But if it turns out they can't, I'm going to renew my original proposal. Which might be better phrased this way: eliminate all stub icons, not just "popular" or "not useful" ones, because it's too hard to identify which ones are popular or useful. Plus it creates bad feelings by users who see their favorite icons eliminated, while others continue to use them.
On the other hand, if it can be established that we can use template icons without bringing the image servers to their knees, I'd want to see an initiative to put icons in all stub templates. These icons are very useful not just for categorizing stubs, but for making casual readers aware that articles are incomplete. ---- Isaac R 18:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I placed the rejected template as I got the impression from the above that this is abandoned for the time being, until further details clarify the situation. Also removed from RfC Hiding 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has anything been decided? Has new information presented itself? Has it been decided that it is a good idea to remove images from stub templates?
On a related note ' Wikipedia:Signatures_should_not_contain_images'? -- Ec5618 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)