This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an archive of requests for 2021.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
Background: The current symbols for good articles and featured content have been used since those systems were introduced way back in Wikipedia's early days. They have significant problems. The featured article icon is too skeuomorphic, giving it an outdated look, and its excessive detail causes it to render poorly at small scale. The good article icon, meanwhile, has been adopted throughout the rest of Wikimedia (and in some places on Wikipedia) as the "support vote" icon, leading to conflicting usage. Far worse than the issues with them individually, however, is the fact that there is no shared visual language between them (the GA icon uses the norro style, and the FA icon does not use any style). When compounded by their overall lack of prominence (a separate issue that we're trying to address), this has led to the unfortunate situation where many (perhaps most) non-editing readers could not tell you whether a star or a green badge is a higher distinction. Given how much effort we put into the GA/FA systems, there's more than a bit of tragic irony to that.
Process: This is the first stage in the process of redesigning the icons (after informal discussions in various places). Ideally, several proposals will be put forth that can be compared against the status quo in a more formal and widely-advertised round of !voting (similar to the process for the MediaWiki logo redesign), with the winner adopted.
Design details: The redesigned icons could end up being anything from checkmarks (a la the Twitter verification badge) to a silver star for GAs to a multi-star system that begins with one star for stubs and increases thereafter; feel free to get creative.
Also, since the whole idea here is to unify the symbology, the redesign will need to include the associated symbols in addition to the main icons. You don't have to design them all now, but candidates with at least an articulated vision of what they should look like may be more likely to win support once we reach the formal !voting stage. Here are the current icons still in use that I could find (there may be a few more fringe ones):
Related icons
Former good article icon
Good article reassessment icon
Good article candidate icon
Former featured article icon
Former featured article candidate icon
Featured article candidate icon
Article for improvement icon
Good topic icon
Good topic candidate icon
Featured topic icon
Featured topic candidate icon
Former featured topic icon
Former featured topic candidate icon
In truth, the potential scope of this project could be a lot bigger, trying to unify all of the icons used anywhere on Wikipedia. However, recent attempts to do so have failed, and their utility is questionable, given that most icons do not appear in reader-facing areas and thus have a vastly more limited reach. Redesigning these two icons is a more feasible task with clear and significant benefits for readers across tens of thousands of pages.
@Pbrks: Thanks for the tip. Since this request is specific to en-WP, I'd prefer the main discussion be hosted here, but I'll copy the request there and invite folks over. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider color blindness (esp. red-green): In data visualization circles, there is increasing awareness of how graphics should be crafted to allow color blind individuals to distinguish through shading, what normally sighted individuals distinguish directly through color perception. (One can test shading in Photoshop etc by removing saturation.) It's my understanding that red-green color blindness is a common type, though not the only type of color blindness. Some color scales are better than others: see Scientific American. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, the direct impetus for this request was a tangential discussion at the Village Pump. I think there have been a few other "we ought to change this" offhand musings over the years that are mostly buried in archives at this point. But largely, as I lay out above, this is the ground floor. If you have thoughts about how to organize the process to ensure visibility/boost participation/etc., those are welcome. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to start with an RfC (or, I guess, two parallel questions) on changing the icons in general to get a mandate for the change, as well as soliciting opinions on what changes people would like to see so any designers have a firmer grasp of what might be acceptable. Not like the original icons were chosen with a ton of deliberation (from what I can see at the WT:GA archives one editor unilaterally came up with the GA icon) but at this point I think you're going to have to get buy-in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, hmm, I'm not quite sure what form that RfC would take. Should it be a yes/no "should these be changed?" question at WP:VPR, or an open-ended "What changes would you want to see?" brainstorming at WP:VPI, or something in between? I don't want to hand over too much of designers' work to general editors, since I trust designers to know best when it comes to designing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my passing opinion. There is a ooui icon called "articleCheck" () and this is what I think a "GA" icon should look similar to. Basically a sheet (representing a page) with a check on it. And in a green color instead of black. For the FA icon, a simple star/medal design on a sheet with an appropriate color would make sense to keep the two icons inline with each other. SInce I believe that most users could understand a star is more important than a check icon. Basic icons such as these are the only way to keep them readable when used as topicons. Terasail[✉]17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Mandate acquired
The formal Village Pump proposal has been archived, and per here, it successfully acquired a mandate for the icons to be redesigned, so I am removing the "on hold" box around this section. I'll leave it up to others to decide how precisely to proceed from here; I hope that someone steps up to take the lead on shepherding the process from here forward, since I'm not sure I can do it myself. This thread can be archived once (and only once) we've moved to the next stage. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmetlii: That's a much more ambitious but still underdeveloped proposal that's been sitting for a while; in my view, it would need a lot of work to become comprehensive enough to become useful, and I don't see that amount of work forthcoming or really worth the effort. I think we should focus on this one, much more feasible task that we have agreed to do, rather than dreaming about bringing all of Wikipedia in line with a universal standard that, realistically, is not likely to happen any time soon. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The icons should be changed to something the average reader is familiar with. The current icons are nice, but they're nice to Wikipedians. The average reader probably has no idea what this means. We should aim to use images which readers will understand. For example: silver star, gold star. A tick / double tick. Or something along those lines. It should be obvious to a reader what it symbolises. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pbrks, there are some nice icons in that set; thanks for putting it together! I think the next step would be arranging a large-scale discussion for those and any other proposals. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tol's icons
Featured iconGood icon
I don't know if people still want to implement this, but I was working on some icons for personal use that render better at smaller sizes and recalled the village pump proposal to do something similar. I'm a terrible graphic designer, but I figured I'd post them here in case anybody is interested. I based them on Wikimedia's OOUI icons; I converted the <path>s in the icons to more human-readable SVG elements and colored them based on Wikimedia Design's color palette. I used a star for the featured icon because it is similar to the existing one, but used a check for the good icon so distinguish it from a support !vote icon. I plan to make more for A/B/C classes. My main problem is that I am unsure how to best represent former, former candidate, candidate, and reassessment icons. I'm currently thinking a cross for former, a question mark for candidate, and both combined in some way for former candidate. I have no good idea for reassessment — magnifying glass, maybe? I'd appreciate some other opinions on how these look and what to do. Thanks for your time! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the icons so far in small icon form: . I put something in the "start" icon instead of making it blank like the existing symbol (). As for "stub", I am unsure if I should model it off the existing symbol () and do a partial circle, or use something else like (perhaps too close to the list icon?). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: These are nice, although I'm not sold on a tick for GA. Question mark works well for candidates (presumably in the gold or green circles), and I don't see why reassessment couldn't use the same icon given it's an assessment of some sort in both cases. I'm not sure a former candidate icon is that important in the grand scheme of things. I would prefer stubs use a partial circle to lines, just so all article rating have a similar aesthetic which distinguishes them from lists. CMD (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the feedback. For the GA icon, I was trying to avoid a star like the FA icon (which would have accessibility problems) and a plus sign (some people thought having the same icon for support votes and good articles is confusing). I haven't been able to get the question mark to look good, but I think I'm close to getting it (I'll probably upload an FA candidate icon soon). I'll do the partial circle for stub. Thank you again! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request two very similar diagrams, which have the pinouts of the NatSemi PACE and INS8900 processors. The latter is an updated version of the former, so they are very similar.
A good guide for the construction of the diagram is the similar one for the Intel 8086, found here. The two chips I am writing about are also 40-pin designs and thus differ from this diagram only in the labelling of the pins.
A non-free version of the image can be found in Osborne's super book on 16-bit designs on page 1.10, hopefully, this link will take you directly to that page.
Note that the version in the diagram on page 1.10 is the 8900. The PACE differs only slightly, and there is a list of differences at the top of the page just above the diagram. Note that the diagram is somewhat confusingly labeled; in the case where the name of the pin changed between the two versions, the diagram shows both names - see pin 20 for instance, which is Vss on one and GND on the other. This isn't universal, they didn't follow the same rule on pin 29!
I only need the pinout itself, not the explanatory text at the top or bottom.
— @Maury Markowitz: I've uploaded File:National Semiconductor INS8900 CPU pinout.svg. I retained the arrow designators from the Osborne manual since the arrows contain more information than the snazzier 8086 diagram you mentioned above. Background is transparent. I added a slight gray tone to the CPU body to distinguish it from the probably-white backgrounds that most viewers will see. I plan to upload the PACE diagram in a short while. Let me know if changes are needed. —RCraig09 (talk)21:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent sir! Only one minor one... can you subscript the "GG" and so forth on the power pins? In any event, send them up to the commons and they'll go in... well I guess I have to write the section on the 8900 first... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Subscripts have been added, and I manually forced a smaller font size of the subscripted text. (You may have to refresh your browser while by-passing the browser cache to see the new Versions 2.) You may be aware, SVG rendering of fonts is far from standardized and some browsers may not render them the same as other browsers. As commercials often warn, "Your results may differ." I think that within Wikimedia/Wikipedia, the new files render acceptably. If not, you can revert to Version 1. I'll add the resolved template, but if any further changes are needed, let me know. We like happy customers! —RCraig09 (talk)05:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a diagram of a car with 4 wheels each powered by a wheel hub motor would be useful. Because otherwise some people will likely get confused about whether they have an axle or not. Would it be possible to make a simplified (maybe schematic) version of the image above? There are also some pics at https://www.lordstownmotors.com/pages/tech which do seem to have an axle so you could base it on those if easier. Seems likely more of these vehicles will be on the market soon. -- Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I've boldly added a link to ijareeie.com which has a schematic in Fig. 2. I can't say "I'll do" at this time but thought this would help clarify the concept to non-engineers. —RCraig09 (talk)19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah very useful. I am not an engineer myself so we may need to get some expert advice as I don't know whether gears are common or not - if not they could be omitted for clarity. Perhaps it would be best to have 2 schematics - one with the motors on the chassis like the one you just added. And one with the motors in the wheels. If I understand right both types will be in production shortly if they are not already. So having 2 schematics would make the difference clear. As they might be in the same article perhaps the style should be like the existing electric car diagram Electric car diagram? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request taken. ...for the basic block diagram (only) inspired by ijareeie.com. A block diagram will be useful in Individual wheel drive and possibly Electric car and Electric vehicle if there are appropriate sections for it. Regrettably my graphic skills aren't up to producing a perspective drawing, but for communicating the basic concept such skills aren't necessary. ——RCraig09 (talk)15:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: Block diagram is uploaded. Let me know if changes are needed. At present, I can't see an additional advantage in showing an in-wheel embodiment; the important concept is the same. ——RCraig09 (talk)18:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RCraig09: Not sure why I did not see ping. Afraid I am going to agree with you and disagree with you and change my mind, so probably means a lot more work sorry. Firstly please remove existing motors and just write "motor" instead of "gears" (colour could be copperish). On the one hand I agree with you that block diagrams ought to be sufficient - but on the other hand I think the distinction between chassis mounted and in-wheel is important (because of the ongoing unsprung weight debate and because apparently both types will be sold) - is it actually possible to show in-wheel motors in a similar block diagram or impossible because 2D? Could you also do block diagrams for "All wheel drive" (as shown in the existing perspective diag), "Front wheel drive" (just one motor at mid-front) and "Rear wheel drive"(just one motor at mid-rear)? Just showing motors, wheels and axles. That way all 5 (or 4 if in-wheel impossible) could be put in the same article for easy comparison. Not sure best way to show which end of car is front - maybe an arrow to show direction of motion? Or no need as it will be obvious? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chidgk1: I don't have sophisticated 3-D graphic skills or software, so as a practical matter I'm limited to relatively simple and less beautiful block diagrams. I have an electronics background, not mechanical, and don't understand many of the details you describe. I'm not sure what an in-wheel block diagram should look like; in any event it's only one embodiment of the broad concept of Individual wheel drive, which is now adequately represented.
- Probably, you should start a separate section asking graphists for specific diagrams for each different embodiment; the requests are too convoluted to pursue in this single section. You should provide a specific source diagram for each request—this page is read by graphists, not necessarily mechanical engineers.
Yes my ideas were not clear when I started this request. Your work has helped me clarify as "simple" is what I need here not necessarily "beautiful". As this request has got complicated and I am now asking for more I hereby close this request and will raise a new request using your very useful block diagram as a starting point. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping for five block diagrams with easy to translate text -
1) Individual wheel drive (chassis mounted) - amend the above block diagram as follows - amend heading (bracketed text maybe smaller maybe underneath big text) remove existing motor symbols, replace "Gears" text with "Motor", change green to light coppery colour, add highish middle text "Battery"
2) Individual wheel drive (in-wheel motor) - amend 1) as follows - amend heading - replace motors with lines pointing to wheels from mid-point text "In-wheel motors"
3) All wheel drive - amend 1) as follows - amend heading - amend motors to one motor (twice as wide) midpoint between each pair of left-right wheels connected to LR wheels by medium thickness line representing axles
4) Front wheel drive - amend 3) as follows - amend heading - remove rear motor and axles - add arrow in front of car to show direction of travel
5) Rear wheel drive - amend 3) as follows - amend heading - remove front motor and axles - add arrow in front of car to show direction of travel
Chidgk1 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GIF version
Done JesseWolfenden (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
JesseWolfenden (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
PNG version
Current good article icon
Current featured content icon
Proposal
Prop with assessments
. I put something in the "start" icon instead of making it blank like the existing symbol (
). As for "stub", I am unsure if I should model it off the existing symbol (
) and do a partial circle, or use something else like 
(perhaps too close to the list icon?). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Harry S. Truman's 1948 presidential campaign button.jpg)
National Semiconductor INS8900 CPU pinout.svg (requested diagram)
National Semiconductor PACE CPU pinout.svg (requested diagram)
Request taken. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
20210921 Individual wheel drive - conceptual block diagram.svg—
.png){kind=link}
Request taken. ...for the basic block diagram (only) inspired by ijareeie.com. A block diagram will be useful in Individual wheel drive and possibly Electric car and Electric vehicle if there are appropriate sections for it. Regrettably my graphic skills aren't up to producing a perspective drawing, but for communicating the basic concept such skills aren't necessary. ——RCraig09 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)