Talk:Icon (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Icon (disambiguation)[edit]

Can't an icon also be a person? The second link is to symbol, which is not what I meant, but it does mention 'readily recognised face'. Shouldn't this be a separate category? But also compare Cult of personality. DirkvdM 07:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

The link to Icon is clearly misleading and unhelpful to readers, as this article deals exclusively with Eastern Orthodox religious images (plus Oriental Orthodox and so on). The "often" now inserted amounts to weasel words. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic says to do this. For more examples of this practice, see Goku (disambiguation), Zero gravity (disambiguation) and MGS. I shall again shorten the primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten for what reason? Adding a mention of the religious connotations may be useful for some readers and can be harmful to none. Abtract (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Because the guideline has it in that manner. No need to write as much as possible. Keep things simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says nothing about keeping it short ... I know you oppose me as a matter of "principle" but surely a little extra help for readers should overcome that? Abtract (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh, I did not say the MoS claims such a statement. If you actually paid attention, you'll see that the sample the guideline provides isn't unnecessarily long. And what with this "principle" talk? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't claim that mosdab indicates it why do you resist what another editor thinks is (quite a small) a worhwhile addition ... except as a matter of principle? Abtract (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to make it so long. For instance, see the short primary topic on Zero (disambiguation), a swell example of a good dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make it "so long", I want to include a few extra words that may help disambiguate and there is no mosdab reason why I shouldn't. Why do you want to make it so short? Abtract (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If such a sacrilegious issue were to be arise from someone else, then I'll re-consider. Until then, there's no need to unshorten the description. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given to the primary topic is clearly wrong, and misleading to readers as it stands. I note your point about the Mos & will edit accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably, Sess, you now admit you were wrong? Abtract (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I was right. Someone brought up a sacrilegious issue, and I've re-considered, as said here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be funny here ... but do you even understand the English language? What does sacrilegious mean? Abtract (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get a dictionary. You're the one who seems to lack proper English awareness, not I. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're all done here guys, no? Thanks to both. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the page. If anything violates WP:MOS-DAB, I'll fix it ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary usage[edit]

Johnbod, care to explain what you are doing here? You're making the primary meaning unnecessarily long, and you're inserting an extra space like so "icon ," for no reason. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same as last time (see above). Concensus is clearly against you & your individual interpretation of the guideline. The extra space is just a mistake - it is rtather typical that this needs to be explained to you. Please stop being a nuisance here. "An icon is a devotional painting" is JUST NOT TRUE. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus do you speak of? According to this, the agreement was to keep the short version. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sesshomaru to keep it short. The links are clear, and the articles go into details. +mt 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short version is simply inaccurate -- the context is necessary for precision. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The context Johnbod is providing is not overly long and provides necessary accuracy. The short version is vague to the point of inaccuracy. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Icon - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British television series[edit]

This list could include reference to a British television series called "Icons" in which Alan Turing was voted the greatest person of the twentieth ccentury. Vorbee (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Icon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]