Talk:Icon

Chronology of the "Emergence" section

The historical sequence of the text in the Emergence section is significantly out of chronological order. The entire emergence should be contextualized by ordering the sequence. Tachypaidia (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

whole article seems to be original research

Although the word "icon" is not used in Western Christianity` The whole section on icons and Western Christianity is unsourced. The article suffers from a basic ambiguity as to its subject matter: icons understood as Byzantine, or icons understood as sacred art mostly in general. --142.163.195.49 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Phooey! The subject is pretty clearly Eastern Christian traditions, with a brief section on periods where the West was heavily influenced by the East, and on Western theological positions on images in general. These aren't referenced, but certainly aren't OR. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to Move. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Ikon → Ikon (disambiguation)
• Icon → Ikon
• Icon (computing) → Icon

– Given that the computing/UI sense is, for many years now, by far the primary meaning in Enlish of icon (and always with a c), that ikon with a k is increasingly used for the religious term as a form of natural disambiguation and was the original spelling anyway, and that subject is by far the primary meaning of ikon with a k, the present three article names make no sense at all and don't comply with WP:AT or WP:DAB. I think this proposed rearrangement would do so, and would generally be helpful. I found it downright weird that Ikon was a disambiguation page rather than the religious images article, that that article was at Icon and that the latter didn't go to the computing topic which is what the word means to about 95% of readers, most of whom don't even now that the term originated from small Orthodox Christian paintings. To the extent the average reader even has any sense of another meaning of icon wit a c, it's another derived and figural one ("pop icon", "iconic film", etc.) With a k, though, the religious paintings are obviously the primary topic for that spelling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose all. Several incorrect statements in the above: "ikon with a k is increasingly used for the religious term" is complete nonsense - it isn't so used at all, except by badly translated Greek or Russian sources. To do so is a mistake in English. Making the computer use primary has been discussed and rejected before, and should be rejected again. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnbod, but we could consider putting the dab at the base name, i.e. Icon → Icon (religious art) (religion) to allow Icon (disambiguation) → Icon. When I cleaned up the 80 bad incoming links to icon in January, most were for cultural icon or pop icon rather than icon (computing). Certes (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  As the option is discussed below, I'll clarify my support for making Icon a dab (in case the closer considers that option at this stage). Certes (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Further evidence: Merriam-Webster just nominated icon as one of its words of 2020, illustrating the announcement with images of John Lewis and Ruth Bader Ginsburg rather than religious artworks. [1]. Certes (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Obviouisly that (purely American) example refers to cultural icon, which should certainly stay where it is (who is John Lewis btw?). Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. You could, however, make a case that the article currently at Icon is not primary, as per Certes. That went to RM in 2012, see Talk:Icon/Archive 1#Requested move. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per reasons listed above. But, I'd strongly SUPPORT moving Icon → Icon (religious art) and moving Icon (disambiguation) → Icon (per User:Certes above), as it doesn't seem the religious artform is the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support moving the dab to the base name. - other usages, including the computing topic seem to be just as sought after. --Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal, I'm not convinced by the current proposal (the "c" and "k" thing is too loose and unsupported), but I could support a move of Icon in general (like a "religious art" or something modifier), as I don't think it's a clear primary topic here. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal but support moving "Icon" to Icon (religious art). There is no clear primary topic for either spelling. BD2412 T 03:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Icon (art) would be the obvious choice - there's no need for "religious". Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  I wondered about that, but is the graphic design of an icon (computing) also art? Certes (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not really - I don't think anybody would be confused. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  A Matryoshka doll is a cultural icon, and it's undoubtedly art. Certes (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you say so, but no one is going to expect to find anything on them at an article called Icon (art)! Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, and not convinced of the need to move Icon. The case seems comparable to Mouse or Virus. Per WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.". Ewulp (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 3rd but move the DAB to the base name, the religious meaning has 9,464 views but the computing has 6,125 and the character has 5,696[[2]]. So I see no primary topic for "Icon" even if the religious meaning has alternative names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  To clarify I support moving the religious meaning away from this base name but no comment on what the new title should be since I'd note that IKon gets 52,386 views[[3]] and many readers won't capitalize the "K" so I'm not sure the religious meaning is primary there so move either to Icon (religion) or Ikon (religion) or some other qualifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Super Ψ Dro 12:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see evidence that "ikon" is a common spelling for the religious art, however, I would support making "Icon" the DAB as suggested by others. Grk1011 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Don’t comply with named guidelines? How so? There is no doubt that WP:COMMONNAME would keep “icon” at a spelling with c, disambiguation or not. Most don’t know? Citation needed. I doubt 95% of readers or our potential audience are immersed enough in desktop computing interfaces to be so invested in computer icons. Citation needed. Is ikon increasingly used for religious paintings? Citation needed. “Was the original spelling anyway”? Not according to the OED. The proposal is based on false and dubious premises. —Michael Z. 13:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This is a misguided and ridiculous proposal. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The religious painting has vast long-term significance and is invariably spelt "icon" in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose both the proposal and its morphing into making "Icon" the dab. Both the word used for reverence of pop and sports stars, as well as the recent term for "point and click" targets are derived from the c 2000 year old tradition of iconography; its bad enough when a Bing search returns ICON plc as first result (work computer, sigh), lets not make it worse by diluting where modern terminology is derived from. Not wanting to be a pedant, but the "small Orthodox Christian paintings" is bugging me; some are life sized, and the dismissive attitude is hard to take, considering the value judgement is in favour of Microsoft buttons. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, well, time for someone to close this clearly failed proposal Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  The original proposal has obviously not passed. It's less clear what to do about the alternative of promoting the disambiguation page to the primary topic. It seems unfair to dismiss as failed, or even "no consensus", a side issue which many editors quite reasonably did not address. One option is to close this discussion as having concluded only that the computing term is not primary, then to start a more focussed RM on whether to move the dab. Certes (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not so sure. As the current discussion was framed on false premises, which coloured voter's openness to a dab, I think a cool down period is warranted. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 19 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus (unfortunately) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Icon → Icon (religious art)
• Icon (disambiguation) → Icon

– The religious art sense is not the primary topic for the term "Icon", so the disambiguation page should lie at the base name. Although its significance is long-term, it is not much more likely than any other single topic, nor more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term (massviews). Please see the discussion above, which decided against a different proposal but also discussed this one. Certes (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support clearly no primary topic by usage and the likes of computer icons are surely significant to along with cultural icons. I'd thought about making such a proposal since the opposition/consensus against was mainly for moving the computing meaning to primary but a new move request to have no primary topic made immediately seems fine. Could also be moved to Ikon (religious art) if people still think that that's a good idea but the main point is that there is no primary topic for "Icon". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support As per nom, not the primary topic for the term "Icon". Namkongville (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support (strongly) per nom. No 100% clear primary topic for "Icon" — between the religious artform, Cultural icon, Icon (computing), etc. The religious artform doesn't eclipse the notability of all of the rest on the dab page combined. Move dab page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:PTOPIC, it matters whether one topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" – e.g., there may be a "conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple)" The decision not to turn Apple into a dab seems sensible to me and should be emulated here. Ewulp (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  A fair comparison, but I would note that with "apple" one of the topics is a fruit/species, and the other is an electronics company; with "icon", all of the topics are cultural manifestations of one kind or another. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree there isn't a conflict since even if we ignore the other popular less long-term significant topics the cultural term probably has more significance or at least not significantly less. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is a case for moving Cultural icon on the grounds that its current title may be ambiguous. That could happen independently of this proposal if anyone wants to suggest a better title. Certes (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as others have said, there is no clear primary topic for icon. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". Srnec (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support – too ambiguous for such a primarytopic situation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds of "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". Even just their role in iconoclast controversies have had a significant impact on history way beyond those of pictures on a computer's desktop. This is similar to the case of Avatar, despite the existence of Avatar (computing), not to mention the movie and TV show. Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Oxford Dictionary gives a famous person 1st then the computer symbol then the painting (which it notes is also "ikon"). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Which “the Oxford Dictionary” is that?? NOAD, ODE, and Oxford Lexico all give the computing sense as third sense with a restricted-context label. OED give it as the third subsense of the first main sense (senses are typically listed in historical-etymological order, I believe). —Michael Z. 15:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  The Mini (2007). Collins lists the description then the religious then the computing meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ewulp, Srnec and Egsan Bacon. Very clear long-term significance in centuries of history over a usage only common in the last decades. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But Wikipedia is a contemporary encyclopedia. The long-term significance embedded in its topic structure reflects the encyclopedic significance as it exists here, in the 21st century, and not as averaged out over the last two millennia. That's why, for example, Ether is about a chemical compound known for two centuries and not about a classical element conceived since the Ancient Greeks, and Pluto is about a planet known for less than a century and not about the deity that has been portrayed in art for nearly three millennia. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It is a current encyclopaedia. That certainly does not mean that modern topics are considered to be any more important than historical topics. You seem to be suggesting that any topic in vogue today should automatically take precedence over any historical topic. That is simply not true. Hence the "long-term significance" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Remember, many of us and our readers are historians! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Even if we assume the religious meaning has enough long-term significance over the computer and other meanings I'd point out that cultural icons have probably to a point been around since time immemorial! and are more common in everyday usage to everyone today possibly even religious people since even they will have cultural icons I don't see how the long-term significance criteria is satisfied here either. Also unlike Pluto it doesn't seem that the other uses derive from this. Many readers are not historians as well and will want one of the many other uses like the computer one, is it really worth diverting those readers onto the wrong article? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Also unlike Pluto it doesn't seem that the other uses derive from this. I can only assume you're joking?! Of course they do! Religious icons are images that are worshipped! The origin of both the other major terms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There's no primary topic with respect to long-term significance: apart from the paintings, there is an important concept in semiotics, an ubiquitous item in computer navigation, and an element potentially present in any culture. Each one of these on its own would have been enough to challenge the current primary topic: semiotics is not encyclopedically less significant than Orthodox art, computer icons are present in the life of a few billions more people than religious icons, and the cultural icon as pointed out above may actually be the primary usage of the term in everyday English. The case for no primary topic with respect to usage has already been clearly made in the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging participants of previous discussion: @SMcCandlish, 162.208.168.92, Gonnym, Aza24, BD2412, Super Dromaeosaurus, Grk1011, Mzajac, In ictu oculi, LSGH, and Ceoil: Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some good points have been made for either side, but the concept of religious icon remains primary. It is the oldest sense of the English noun in common use, and the subject and its name both date back to medieval and Ancient Latin and Greek. It is the primary sense in general-use dictionaries (in the Oxford dictionaries, the computing sense is no. 3 with a restricted-usage label computing). Yes, the computer icon has been present in many people’s worlds since the 1980s or 2000s, but we can only comprehend its name and concept by relating it to the root meaning. The computing sense is only a specific facet of a subject covered with more breadth in pictogram and especially iconography, the latter also relating more strongly to the religious icon. Parallel examples are window, menu, mouse, and button, which also name supposedly ubiquitous computing concepts. Other senses of icon are either even more technical, in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, or the computer programming language; or simply metaphorical language used to refer to concepts not so fundamentally tied to the word (cultural, gay, pop icons, etcetera, are equally stars, celebs, paragons, or whatever) – and without the icon, this metaphor couldn’t exist. —Michael Z. 15:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There is no primary topic here per page views data, which is the only data provided so far in this discussion. Being tied to religion does not automatically make it the most important thing to the entire world. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The sheer number of possible meanings, including multiple substantially significant uses, makes it implausible that there is a primary topic for this term. BD2412 T 18:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  By "sheer " do you mean 3? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per those above. Both the word used for reverence of pop/sports stars, as well as the recent term for "point and click" targets are derived from the > 2000 year tradition of iconography. Ceoil (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Derivation isn't always decisive: see Madonna (recently moved), Boston, etc. Certes (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'd agree with both those moves. But "isn't always" isn't...always, so your point is OTHERSTUFF. Madonna and Boston are both proper nouns nad so "named after" rather than derived, while with 'icon', the derivation is from its application. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  And to clarify, agree with the point made above by Mzajac re pictograms for computer interfaces. Further re the proposed target, until the late middle ages, icons were more objects of veneration rather than works of "art". Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that we don't need to look at other stuff. There are, in fact, well-established guidelines for that. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY has it that historical age is not determinative and that [b]eing the original source of the name is also not determinative (and I don't see how distinguishing two kinds of etymology helps here). – Uanfala (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Uanfala, thanks for that, but are we not saying the same thing, ie each case should be judged on it's merits. I contend that "isn't always isn't...always", while you are saying that guidelines bla...and of course guidelines aren't policy. I think the example of Mouse above is better than Boston. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, each case should be judged on its merits. In particular, the fact that more recent terms derive from an older tradition does not tell us whether that tradition is a primary topic. We need to look at other evidence. Certes (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Such as? Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ceoil, you can read the guidelines for determining a primary topic at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. What's given there underpins all the arguments in this discussion, of both sides. – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Such as the pageview figures I provided in the nomination, though other types of evidence should also be considered if provided. Certes (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  yes, that’s a fair point for consideration. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, since there is no clear primary topic for icon. Icon (computing) and Pop icon were the first things that came to my mind when seeing the word "icon", definitely not "a religious work of art." Some1 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Post-RM comment: I would have supported, but was on wiki-break. Please ping everyone from both threads if this comes up again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Its currently being discussed at User talk:Ceyockey#Icon RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that discussion has continued at User_talk:Ceyockey#Icon_RM. I have encourage to take to Wikipedia:Move review, but this does not appear to be something people are willing to do. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)