Forum:CT:Search icon tweaks

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Search icon tweaks

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Do not adopt relevancy standards; adopt quality standards (already done); maintain existing popup box; no consensus on restricting to canon image. jSarek 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are two proposals from Forum:Search icons. - Sikon 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance to searching

Currently, we accept anything, as long as it's good quality.

The proposal is to require the icons to be relevant to the process of searching, like the original Wookiee icon that started it all. - Sikon 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm more in favor if this proposal, mainly because I think ones like Mt Sorrow and the Sun King or whatever he is, look rediculous. If this becomes the case, all the new additions I would think should be placed back in the forum thread with an added section for "How they pertain to searching" or something like that. Then let Admin's decide if they meet the standard for a "searching" icon. - JMAS 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the free design of just putting icons with the search text. And having "how does this pertain to searching" thing might just make it more confusing; for instance, while a probe droid is obviously searching, Mount Sorrow may be searching for your soul, or Burl Ives looking for a friend... you can pretty much go anywhere with it. So, let the icon makers make their icons how they like. Don't let the man stifle their abilities, man :-P Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • or Burl Ives looking for a friend... - I have no comment. All I can do is smile. .... 11:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we insist that the icons be thematically relevant, we place a gigantic restriction on which icons are appropriate, which means way fewer icons for the random rotation, which means we'd get the same small set of droids and bounty hunters every single time, which means we might as well scrap the whole random rotation idea. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No relevancy, definitely quality standards. —Xwing328(Talk) 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if they should be relevant to searching, but I think we should limit it to canon images. Charlii 09:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be narrowed down to images that are relevant to searching - variety and variation make it all mroe interesting. I don't have a problem with the Sun King icon and similar icons, I find them humorous. The quality requirement is okay, though, but maybe there should be a set of rules. Right now the criteria for acceptance and rejection seem semi-haphazard. KEJ 16:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it matters. It's just a fun gimmick. It's fun to be surprised by the random picture. It adds more depth to Wookiee-Pedia. It makes it more interesting to frequent users and Star Wars buffs. Dak Ryshard 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Link direction

Wikia's default behavior is to have the search icon point to the Wikia Central main page.

On Wookieepedia, this is overridden (via JavaScript) so the link points to the advanced search page.

The proposal is to make it point to the article for whatever is depicted on the icon. - Sikon 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, the 1 link would point to the icon's article. There'd be no direct way to the advanced search page then, right? -Fnlayson 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pressing the Search button would direct you there. - Sikon 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I assume 'there' means the article page. I was specifically asking about getting to the advanced search page. -Fnlayson 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this! --Themelle444 10:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on this actually. I don't particularly think it's necessary though. - JMAS 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This would prevent people from posting WTF? threads in the Forum every time Burl or the Sun King come up. This would also make creating icons slightly easier. I support two separate images, with the icon linked, provided it isn't too much trouble. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As it is right now, I'd prefer no link, then Advanced Search link, then the article link as my least favorite. No matter what we do, pressing go or search with no text will automatically take you to the advanced search page. —Xwing328(Talk) 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How about a tiny "What is this?" tag in some corner of the search box? Charlii 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether it's a good idea that the icon links to an article, but I like the "What is this?" idea. I it would be useful if the search icons link here, though. KEJ 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A "What is this?" link sounds good. --School of Thrawn 101 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree about the "What is this?" link. How could it be made small enough? Or aligned so it doesn't look bad, like it's just floating around in the middle of nowhere? One's natural behavior, when faced with something confusing, is to hover one's mouse over it. If we change the way the Search image links at all, it should be that each portrait links to its relevant article. But like Xwing, I think the best bet may be to leave it alone. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"What's this?" link - straw poll

Support

  1. Sikon 08:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. This was my idea so, yes. I'd rather have the image link directly, but if people want to keep the advanced search link... Charlii 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Themelle444 16:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I'd rather see the image itself link to the page. I don't think the what's this link could be made to look good with the space available. Havac 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Havac. Gonk (Gonk!) 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Havac. Chack Jadson 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Adopt what's there now: the popup box

Support

  1. A compromise, I think. Sikon 08:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. A delicious compromise. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Works for me. jSarek 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Havac 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. JMAS 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Canon images?

Ok, after encountering Burl Ives twice and Lucas once this morning I'll bring this up again. I think that we should only approve canon, in-universe, images as search icons. This is not a big restriction, and it only affects four or five images currently in rotation, but it is still a good policy. While odd and mostly unknown things only increases peoples interest (at least when we get that link properly...) non-canon images only lessens our credibility. What do you people think? Charlii 10:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, putting an Academy Award winning actor there lessens our credibility, whilst putting green rabbits, smouldering slabs of teleportational meat, flowers, and noseless busty trees heightens it. Yeah, sure. .... 09:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, as a Star Wars encyclopedia it does! Charlii 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • (sees Rule 6) No comment. .... 07:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with busty trees? Anyway, don't mind some bts-related icons. I think the Burl Ives icon is humorous - I don't know if it was intended to be humorous, though. The only problem I have with the Lucas icon is that it's the wrong font. KEJ 08:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I find Lucas' Aurebesh font nice. It has to be special for the creator :P
        Anyway, I agree with Charlii; Burl Ives is just out of context there. Stake black msg 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure, I am not going to argue for at deleteion of the Lucas icon. It is just mot the prescribed font. KEJ 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Burl Ives is supposed to be humourous. It's basically a protest icon. .... 23:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)