This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
This page is the within the scope of WikiProject Edit requests, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's edit request process and reduce the number of edit requests in the edit request queue.Edit requestsWikipedia:WikiProject Edit requestsTemplate:WikiProject Edit requestsEdit requests
Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change File:Red Pencil Icon.png to File:Pencil font awesome.svg|16px, as a black icon would stick out less than the red pencil icon, which most users would not use. Emphrase - 💬 / 📝08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find that editors who report problems with automated taxoboxes at the various talk pages are often unaware of the red pencil icon. Making it black would hide it still further, so my !vote is against this proposal. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emphrase: before the red pencil icon was introduced it used to be just "[e]" – anything else is too wide to fit on the right of a taxobox. ("Report problems" would be wrong, since this isn't where the link goes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for now, since there's objection. This would need fuller consensus discussion. PS: In Chrome on MacOS (and maybe more generally), the "Scientific classification" wording and the pencil icon overlap, even in the example box at Template:Automatic taxobox. Making this black would cause a legibility problem (there already is one for anyone with a form of red color-blindness, since red comes out close to black). This needs to be fixed with some CSS kerning, regardless of any color proposals. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: if you look at an automated taxobox where the overlap arises (e.g. this version of Haworthia), the words "Scientific classification" are centred and the red pencil icon is floated right, which is why it can overlap if the taxobox is too narrow. Kerning wouldn't solve this problem. One possibility seems to be to impose a minimum width on the taxobox, e.g. via the the CSS3 min-width property. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it may be enough to add some non-breaking spaces either side of "Scientific classification" – simpler and probably more browser-proof. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: by itself, adding non-breaking spaces turns out not to work: the red pencil icon floats right underneath the non-breaking spaces, so doesn't act as a wikilink. It's possible to force it to the top by altering the z-index in CSS, but I've always had problems in the past with complex positioning, and once this is necessary, we might as well use min-width. Here's a comparison of the current and sandbox versions, the latter using min-width:15em;. It looks ok in the browsers I've tested on a Mac; how does it look to you? Maybe 16em would give more of a margin for browser/font/etc. variability? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plantdrew pointed out that there can be an extra problem when the classification_status parameter is used, because in the live version the extra text that is added is just tacked onto "Scientific classification". So I changed the sandbox version to insert a line break before this extra text, as per the third example above. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a discussion and consensus for a change to such a widely viewed icon.
The icon needs to be visible with sufficient contrast against all the colours set by taxoboxes – see {{Taxobox colour}}. The one chosen did not show up well (to me at least) against the yellowish shades.
I suggest updating the sandbox version of this template and then using the chart below to check the contrast. It's important to have a range of editors respond, because colours appear differently on different screens and to different people.
I propose a less intrusive/distracting icon which fits nicely into the Wikipedia colour scheme and looks much more natural: . This is the same icon already used in Wikidata infoboxes, see for example Vegemite. 49.197.5.132 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on accessibility grounds. I'm not against a change of icon, but I find this one too hard to see against some colours of background, and I suspect that people with more eyesight issues than me will find it even more problematic. Any useful icon needs to be intrusive to some degree, otherwise it doesn't work as an icon. (Note that in the Vegemite example, the icon is on a white background.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's some discussion above about changing the pencil icon that predated the OOUI system. Now that that system has been established and is being increasingly widely used elsewhere on Wikipedia, I hope that we'll be able to switch to using it here, and to adopt File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg, which will look like this: . Please let me know your thoughts, and if there is consensus to proceed, I can action. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstration of the existing and proposed icons; see also the table at #Change of icon above
First row shows the proposed icon at the same size as the existing one
Icons shown are the current red pencil (left), the 10px blue icon (with exceptions) and the 15px black icon (right). The second icon is the 10px blue icon except for Animals (16px blue icon), Archeae (14px black icon) and Viruses (16px red icon).
@Peter coxhead, the proposal here is of a different, bolder icon than the one from above, which was , not (the sandbox has been updated, thus the table above changed). The icon is the same color as the text, so I'd be surprised if there were any accessibility issues, but I put an invite at WT:WPACCESS so we can get some expert input. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: the red pencil was the consensus at the time, following discussions of those concerned with taxoboxes, i.e. WP:WikiProject Tree of Life and its descendant wikiprojects. They should be involved in any decision to change an icon that appears in more than 535,000 articles with automated taxoboxes. I really don't see the need to change an icon that is well known to those who work with automated taxoboxes and has strong contrast, for a different, less obvious one.
@Peter coxhead, I'll drop an invite on WT:TOL, too. Regarding the impetus for the change, there are several reasons for it. The first is consistency: it's easier for users to learn what icons do when the same one is used for the same functionality class. The second is the design itself: the modern icon is simple, whereas the old one is overly skeuomorphic (an outdated look) and renders poorly on high-resolution devices that can tell it's only 16px. The last is that, for readers, making the icon less obvious is the point. For 99.9% of users, they're trying to read about the organism (or edit some other part of the article), not change the taxonomy structure. They don't want a big red distracting icon. In this discussion, we'll have lots of voices from the 0.1% of editors who do want to edit the taxonomy, and your work is absolutely crucial, but you all will still be able to find your way to the taxonomy edit pages even with the new icon.
I know that it can take some time to adjust to a new look—no design change in history has ever gone off smoothly haha. But this change is really long overdue, and I hope you'll keep an open mind to it. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: yes, the currently used icon should be updated to a higher resolution. But to say that it's a big red distracting icon is, frankly, nonsense. Editors new to constructing automated taxonomy templates often have to be pointed to the red pencil, so it's clearly not over-obvious.
We have discussed at some time in the past switching to the word "edit", which is a possibility if people really don't like the icon, but this was (if I remember an old discussion correctly) thought to be more distracting. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having constructed the table above to show the existing and proposed icons, I agree that the contrast is acceptable. But I still think the proposed icon is too small and not sufficiently obvious. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally have anything to do with TOL so my opinion is worth practically nothing. But, whomever it was that decided that the blue pencil icon is a good design should be fired. It is an awful design that looks nothing like a pencil. I only know that it is supposed to be a pencil from this discussion's heading. The icon is so small that what detail is in the design gets lost at normal screen resolution and text size.
Tell the designer to go back to the drawing board.
I have no problem with an improved icon, but the small blue "pencil" is not an improvement. If icons are meant to be intuitive it fails the first test, as it requires knowledge of the standard (whether widely used or not). It looks more like a syringe without a needle when small and it's not clear what it's meant to be when enlarged. — Jts1882 | talk10:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl the 10px size comes from {{EditAtWikidata}}. If it'd help this pass, I'd support increasing it to 16px to match the current icon size. That'd be my second choice, though, since per above, de-emphasizing this icon that's only ever used by a tiny fraction of users is the point. To put some numbers on it, I came across this at red panda, an article that gets an average of 79,574 pageviews a month. The equivalent taxonomy page, Template:Taxonomy/Ailurus, gets 34 pageviews a month, 0.04% as many views. This is not something that needs to be prominent. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reverse can be argued. Of course the taxonomy template gets few views; I'm surprised it's as many as 34 a month. No-one looks at templates that just work. The issue is signalling to editors what to do if the taxonomy needs to be changed, and since most editors don't look at or even know about the taxonomy template, there needs to be some clear indication as to how to access the taxonomy to edit it. Let me be very clear: I have no attachment to the icon being a red pencil; that was just the consensus long ago. I do however want it to be reasonably prominent for what I think are good reasons.
Increasing the size to 16px, the same as the existing icon, would be my second choice over keeping the existing one, so perhaps this may be the best compromise? See the first row of the table above now. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The icon is the way people access the taxonomy pages, so you could equally argue that the icon is not prominent enough. It doesn't follow that low pages views means it doesn't have to be prominent.— Jts1882 | talk07:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How often does taxonomy need to be changed? I stand by the assertion that >99.9% of viewers of red panda will have no interest in the taxonomy box, and even among the tiny fraction of readers who are editors, >99% will not be changing the taxonomy box. I understand that this template is managed by a project that focuses on that 0.001% of the time when taxonomy does need editing, but we need to look at this in context. We shouldn't make an icon prominent that'll need to be used so rarely and that is pretty easy to find in those rare circumstances. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not very often, but Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that can be edited by anybody. There needs to be a clear way for people to edit the taxonomy. This could be improved further, but the proposed change doesn't help this and makes it less clear. This seems to be a solution to a non-problem that doesn't really have any practical benefits. — Jts1882 | talk10:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only recently started dealing with taxonomy article, and I was at first a bit stumped by the pencil icon. Sure, it obviously is a pencil, but what does that pencil mean? Ah, yes, it allows you to edit the corresponding value. The point of the icon is not to depict a pencil but to signal the ability to edit, and to that end, the blue icon would have been much clearer to me, as I've already seen it used with the same meaning elsewhere (on Wikidata, also likely in other infoboxes). – Uanfala (talk)20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikidata (I looked at Haworthia (Q133983)), the icon is larger, darker and accompanied by a small sized word "edit", and seems to me very obvious on the page. If the proposal were to change to exactly the same as Wikidata, I would agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. As an extra point, I used to have a colour blind colleague who hated any use of red in user interfaces, so presumably he would be in favour of the move away from that colour. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to choose between either text (probably {{VTE}}) or an icon, but if we use an icon, I'd be alright with the black one at the larger 16px size, as demo'd for the Archaea line above. Would that be an acceptable compromise? {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more background: in a page with a manual taxobox, created by {{Taxobox}}, opening the page for editing shows the same taxonomic hierarchy/classification as is visible in reading view. But if you open a page for editing which has an automated taxobox, created by {{Automatic taxobox}} for example, the taxonomic hierarchy simply isn't there (because it's retrieved from taxonomy templates), and there's no indication where it came from. We must make it clear to all editors how they can change the displayed taxonomy; how we do this is another matter.
@Sdkb: a larger black icon, like the demo at the Archaea row, is acceptable to me as a compromise, if it's acceptable to the others who have objected here. I don't see the point in making it red, as per the last row in the table, because, as others have noted above, the new icon doesn't look like a pencil, so the association with correcting via a red pencil/pen doesn't work. The black one only needs to be 15px, I think – I've changed it to this size.
What exactly is your objection to following the exact style at Wikidata? "[ edit ]" is precisely what editors would expect, since it's how you access sections of articles for editing. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with following the Wikidata style. When I first started editing, it took me awhile before I realized that I could click on the red pencil to make an edit. Likewise, at first glance, the new proposed size and image doesn't appear to be as intuitive either because the pencil shape gets lost with the smaller size. The Wikidata style seems to satisfy aesthetics, purpose, and accessibility so that it's easier for anyone to understand and edit. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes: it took me some time to realise that the pencil is something that you can interact with rather than just a static picture. I think it might be from this perspective that the new icon is blue: it's the same colour as wikilinks, so it's more intuitively clear that it can be clicked on. I agree that it's even clearer if the word "edit" is there, blue and linked: either following the black pencil icon like on Wikidata, or using the same format as in section headings: on its own in square brackets. A potential issue is that, because the extra space occupied by the word "edit" and the fact that this is appended to what is usually one of the longest fields in the infobox, the whole thing can now make the infobox wider. – Uanfala (talk)14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On both Wikidata and in Mobile View the icon is accompanied by "edit". It doesn't rely on the icon alone. If consistency is the reason for change then this would be an improvement. The width of the section header is an issue, but could be solved by replacing the header "Scientific Classification" with "Taxonomy", which is what it links to. — Jts1882 | talk15:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to "Taxonomy" makes sense to me, especially since the content is set up by "Taxonomy/..." templates. So at, say, Plant, it would look something like this:
Okay, so taking stock of the above, it seems that we have a consensus to use the larger 16px size, and since some folks feel that black is better, let's go with that color. Some folks have suggested using text as well as an icon, but it doesn't seem we've reached any consensus on that yet. Therefore, I'll plan to implement the larger black pencil in a day or so if there are no major objections; I hope everyone feels like that's at least a step forward. The new icon may attract some more folks to come here and weigh in, so we can certainly keep discussing. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make one decision on the change to make. The reasons for making any change are for consistency across Wikimedia projects and clarity. Just changing the colour and style of the pencil doesn't really do either (the pencil without the text introduces its own consistency). — Jts1882 | talk10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency across Wikimedia project and clarity are good arguments, it seems to me, for using the same style as Wikidata, i.e. including the word 'edit' beside the pencil. (I think 15px is about right, rather than 16px – as in my mock-up immediately above). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of situations where the pencil is used to indicate "edit" without any text. That's what happens at {{EditAtWikidata}}, probably the most analogous situation, in more than 1 million transclusions. The pencil without text is also used for the mobile editing interface, e.g. here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have hacked the sandbox so that the icon and the '(edit)' text are all one link instead of two as Editor Peter coxhead's mockup uses:
Thanks, Trappist. Definitely not "(edit)", though, as this is not used elsewhere to my knowledge. I think that "edit" without the brackets is best, as per Wikidata, but if others really want brackets, then it should be "[edit]". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above, ideally it would be better without the brackets as in Wikidata. I also think that the pencil by itself works well in the mobile editing interface because there are only four symbols and it's easy to guess/figure out what each one is for. However, this isn't the case for the desktop version since it's mostly text and so it would be helpful to have the word edit next to the pencil.Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late to this party, but this mockup seems to be a definite improvement in my opinion. Personally, I'd be in favor of just having the icon, but I don't think having the "edit" afterwards makes it any worse. Honestly pretty much anything would be better than the janky red pencil icon at this point. Fritzmann (message me) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral about the change but I think the pencil alt text for screen-readers and other accessibility needs should be fixed. Shyamal (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is something I hadn't noticed before. The {{Edit_taxonomy}} template we are discussing has a default of "Edit this classification", which seems appropriate. However, this is always overriden because {{automatic taxobox}} and {{speciesbox}} pass their own default values for the |edit link= parameter ("e" and "edit", respectively). This parameter can be set in {{speciesbox}}, although I've never seen it set, but is not available in {{automatic taxobox}}.
Following up on all this a few months later, I think having an RfC may be the best way to settle consensus and gain further input given the magnitude of the change. I'll start one below. On the alt text, I certainly support seeing that improved, Shyamal, but as it's a little beyond my technical capacity and separate from this, I'll leave it to others. {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Text: There is a clear consensus that there should be no text. The most compelling reason to add text is accessibility, but the alt text for the icon is already "edit".
Size: The one counterargument to 15px is that the icon should be deemphasized since editing an {{Automatic taxobox}} is rare, as shown by pageviews. However, there appears to be a consensus that 15px is large enough to be noticeable, but small enough to be unobtrusive, and so the data isare not relevant given that relatively uniform aesthetic judgment.
Color: One editor has correctly noted that blue is appropriate because EditAtWikidata uses blue for progressive actions. However, there appears to be a conesnsus that blue would get lost in the background color, and black makes the pencil stand out enough to be noticeable. Based on that concern, there appears to be a consensus for black given the extant color scheme of the template (seeWP:IAR)).
This RfC concerns the icon that should be used in the infobox for organism articles, which when clicked takes one to a page that allows one to edit the taxonomic classification. Since 2011, it has been File:Red Pencil Icon.png at 16px (). For examples, clicking the icon in the infobox at Acacia pycnantha leads to Template:Taxonomy/Acacia. It appears on more than 300,000 pages. In discussion above from earlier this year, editors proposed various changes to the icon, which are reflected in the elements below.
Please !vote on your preferred format for the icon by indicating your stance on each of these three elements:
Style/color: Skeuomorphic (, status quo), Red (), Black (), Blue (), or Other
Size: 16px (, status quo), 15px (), 12px (), 10px (), or Other
Text: No Text (status quo), Plain Text (edit), or Bracketed Text ([edit])
Blue, 10px, No Text. The first consideration here is how much emphasis this icon should have. If we give it too little, we make it harder to edit, and if we give it too much, we end up cluttering the article for readers. As we're all editors here, we all have a bias toward making it as easy as possible to edit, but I urge everyone not to neglect the other half. We want to present information as cleanly as possible for readers, and an excessive icon is distracting and just plain ugly. So how much is it actually needed for editing? It turns out, almost never. The icon is only ever needed for a very specific, quite rare edit — changing taxonomic structure. Pageview data confirms this clearly: for example, red panda gets an average of 79,574 pageviews a month, whereas the equivalent taxonomy page, Template:Taxonomy/Ailurus, gets 34 pageviews a month, 0.04% as many views.Given all this, I support deemphasizing the icon as much as possible. Using the smaller 10px size is a good start, plus it helps with consistency with {{EditAtWikidata}} (a template used more than 700,000 times, and the most common place users are likely to encounter a pencil icon), which uses the 10px size. We should also retain only the icon, rather than adding a text element. The pencil icon signifies editing, and the tooltip "Edit this classification" makes its purpose all the clearer, so the text is not needed to clarify — anyone confused by it probably shouldn't be editing taxonomic classifications yet.The last element is the color. For this, consistency is the main concern, as more consistent iconography can help editors recognize icons across Wikipedia more easily. The Wikimedia Foundation's modern style is to use the OOUI icon library, which is simple in form (good for display at small scale) and consistent with other icons. It's what we use for EditAtWikidata and other uses. The foundation's design style guide also discusses color: red is for destructive actions (e.g. deletions), black is for neutral, and blue is for progressive actions, i.e. those "which lead to a next step in the process". This is reflected in the file names on Commons of the red/black/blue OOUI pencil icons. Under this framework, going to an edit page is clearly a progressive action, and as such we should use blue. This again matches EditAtWikidata. {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black, 15px, No Text. A switch to a red pencil would be the most conservative change, although the use of red for destructive actions is a good reason to change. I like the blue but the contrast on some background colours is poor. Black gives the best contrast on all backgrounds and I'd argue editing the taxonomy templates is a neutral action, changing one viewpoint for another. I don't agree with the pageview argument for reducing the prominence. One of the reasons for making the change is making it more obvious to new editors. As a regular editor I know it's there so it doesn't matter much. 10px is certainly too small, especially with the blue. 12px a bit better and might be acceptable with black, but I think 15px is the best size for clarity without being excessive. I was leaning towards including the text to make it more obvious to encourage more editors to get involved, but on balance I think minimising the clutter just wins out. Aesthetically no text is also nicer, but I can be persuaded it's better to add the text to make editing more inclusive. — Jts1882 | talk13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black, 15px, No Text (I'm also happy with Red, the conservative option.) As Jts1882 notes, there is an issue of contrast; unlike other uses of a pencil icon, in taxoboxes it appears on a range of background colours. 12px is definitely too small. Editing a taxonomy template changes one classification for another, and is not "progressive" in the way that adding extra information is, so black is justifiable. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blue, 15px, No Text Agree that 12px is too small. The colour blue makes it stand out a little for me. If I am creating or adding a taxobox, I use the pencil, which can be quite often for me. It is also a very quick visual indicator that the taxobox used is automatic, and I think having it blue will help in that regard. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black, 15px, No Text Black is a little easier to see and works well with all of the background colors. The blue pencil gets lost a little bit with the two blue backgrounds. As far as the size, agree with others that 12px is too small to see. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black, ≤15px, No text. Black works well with all of the background colours. I wouldn't mind making the pencil a bit smaller than 15px to deemphasise the icon, as it's not going to be needed often. — Qwerfjkltalk19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blue, 15px, No Text using the blue color will make the edit function standout without being distracting, blue is also the color that Wikipedia uses for links which will help an average user understand that it is clickable. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Black, ≥ 15px, No text. Black works best with all background colours. Size should be 15 or 16 pixels: I don't see a significant difference between the two, but other other examples are too tiny. I would actually prefer skeuomorphic pencil, but I guess we're stuck with the new icon. Text is not necessary. (Summoned by bot) Politrukki (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
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.
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
