Talk:Iconathon 2013

Process set

Oversight is by itself an archaic term, as that extension hasn't been available since 2009. At the same time, the term remains in relatively common use, although is being used interchangeably with "suppression". Perhaps a better name for the entire process would be useful - nobody's changed the term "oversighter" with "suppressor", thank goodness! Risker (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We've run into this before in other areas - that the term is weird. The real process is "revision deletion" but that's a technical idea and not the social/political application of the power (which is what we're really talking about here). I dislike the term "oversight" but I've got nothing better. Luckily, this is a visual icon, and the word "oversight" won't appear.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So I thought revision deletion was what administrators could do, and suppression was an extra bell/whistle that locks off the same material from even administrators (granted, using probably the same extension). Maybe we just go back to calling it oversighting on everything and drop the term suppression? That would work for me. Risker (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right and I'm wrong re: the mechanics of revdel v. suppression. I don't like "suppression" either because reasons. Hrm. What an ugly, sticky wicket. We're basically just getting to "request that someone make this content go away because BAD". --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I confess that one of my biggest problems with the term "suppression" is its close relationship to "suppressive person". Risker (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've advocated using "suppressors" and "super-suppressors," as I think that terminology is vastly clearer and more accurate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

+1 --Waldir (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Users and Rights

These icons describe different kinds of users. - We need to add something for normal users (autoconfirmed ones?) because the existing list of admins, anons, blocked users and bots doesn't cover this. Thehelpfulone 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking these are more "badges" than "avatar" type icons, actually. This is a good point, though.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, THO is probably right. On Enwp, we have fezzes for several groups, but there are lots of additional opportunities even there. Risker (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Education

The items listed under Education are worthy of having icons, but they're not actually the WP:PILLARS, right? Those would be best described as the following I think...

1. Encyclopedic ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.")
2. Neutral point of view ("Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.")
3. Free content ("Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.") [For this one, it seems like maybe the CC-BY-SA symbol already works?]
4. Civility ("Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.")
5. Ignore all rules. ("Wikipedia does not have firm rules.")

Anyway, I would have edited directly but I wasn't sure if the ones you wanted in the list were preferred, or if you really wanted to literally replicate the Pillars. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am personally not married to them (I don't know how they ended up in the list originally). Feel free to edit directly. Personally, I have misgivings about approaching them because of the ambiguity and difficulty surrounding defining good visual language for them.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it would help to know if we wanted to use them in the actual WP:PILLARS page, or somewhere else. I'll poke Vibha and Munaf. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

License

«CC-licensed images without a specific owner»: does such a thing even exist? (Not in France, I bet.) And above you mention a generic "public domain" (which is not a CC-license). You probably want to use the CC-0, but you must make it clear so that the originals they'll make derivatives of are CC-0 too. --Nemo 12:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nemo , thanks for the question!

CC-licensed images without a specific owner are possible under the CC+ protocol.

Information from Creative Commons ---

Can I waive license terms or conditions? Yes. You may choose to waive some license terms or conditions. Works licensed using CC but with additional permissions granted or conditions waived may be compatibly licensed with other works under the same license. The 3.0 licenses specifically permit this, and our CC+ protocol provides a mechanism for facilitating that grant.

CC+ is CC license + Another agreement.

It is NOT a new or different license or any license at all, but a facilitation of more Permissions beyond ANY standard CC licenses. Worth emphasizing is that CC+ (and use of that mark) requires that the work be licensed under a standard CC license that provides a baseline set of permissions that have not been modified or customized. The plus (+) signifies that all of those same permissions are granted, plus more!

CC+ is a protocol providing a simple way for users to get rights beyond the rights granted by a CC license. For example, a work's Creative Commons license might offer noncommercial rights. With CC+, the license can also provide a link by which a user might secure rights beyond noncommercial rights -- most obviously commercial rights, but also additional permissions or services such as warranty, permission to use without attribution, or even access to performance or physical media.

Note that in order to use CC+ the additional permissions need to be set forth in a separate document or resource -- the official legal code within the "corners" of the license cannot be added to or changed in any respect.

I hope this helps! Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really, but I didn't ask help for me so it doesn't matter. --Nemo 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Icon for ShortURL?

Would also be nice to have a ShortURL icon - for mostly non-latin projects that use mw:Extension:ShortURL. For context, see the placement of the ShortURL [1] on page ta:புற்று_நோய் right under the title. The use case for the short url is sharing links on chat / anywhere - copy pasting the actual URL anywhere hex encodes it, making the link huge. The current placement (right under the title) is very eugh, and should probably be converted into a simple icon. Yuvipanda (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)