This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358(Talk) 19:46, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
So, the search icons used for the search box in Monobook have grown quite stale. There's actually a page where new icons can be proposed here. As you can see, there are a good, good amount of search icons ready to be added to the roster of icons currently in use.
Nevertheless, the process of adding them to the rotation has been stalled for quite a long time. In my opinion, this problem could be rectified if we simply had a designated "search icon czar." This would be an individual, probably an administrator, who would be willing to vet new icon proposals (to make sure they meet the guidelines), and then add them to the in-use list. Such a person would need to have access to a graphics program more sophisticated than MS Paint (Photoshop or the Gimp would work) to check icons for hidden imperfections, but otherwise, the job wouldn't be too onerous, especially after the current batch of expectant icons was added to the rotation.
So, my question is this: Would the community be OK with selecting a search icon czar for this task? Would it be better to elect someone, or just see if any admin is willing to volunteer for the post? (I lean toward just letting someone volunteer, but I can see the other being useful as well). What's clear is that something needs to be done if we don't want to see Wicket mooning us on every 20th or 30th page view! :) ~Savage 00:46, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
I'm cool either way, but note that it must be an admin, because the list that the randomizer actually pulls from is embedded in the middle of MediaWiki:Monobook.js, which is only editable by admins. —MJ—War RoomSaturday, April 7, 2012, 23:14 UTC
I'm OK with this. I'd like to see the proposed icons pass soon. Menkooroo 20:39, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Sure, as long as said czar has a thing against CGI. ;) NaruHinaTalk 21:19, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any last-minute objections to any of the proposed icons? If not, I'll just go ahead and install all the ones I don't personally see any problems with and which don't have any outstanding issues posted on the page. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 21:34, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
The only ones that should have problems are the few that don't follow the "only crop from the bottom" rule. We may decide we no longer want to enforce that rule, but technically, the Cauldron wampa, Oro Dassyne, Paxi Sylo, Aayla Secura, Thrawn, Eye/Nil Spaar, and Force ghost proposals crop from the top or left as well as the bottom. There are also some duplicates in there; not duplicate images but duplicate target links. For instance, there are two Leias, and two proposed Orn Free Taas. It's possible we may not care that there are duplicates like this, but another solution might be to simply change the target link on one of the two duplicates so that, say, one of the Leias goes to Leia Organa Solo and the other goes to Princess or Senator or Alderaanian. Similarly, one of the fat Twi'leks could got o Orn Free Taa and the other to Senator or Rutian. If you'd like me to transfer these comments to the proposal page, let me know. :) ~Savage 22:01, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please put those comments on the proposal page. We'll work out those issues later and I'll just post the rest. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 23:05, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've noted the icons that currently violate the cropping rule (only crop acceptable under current rules is from below), and those that duplicate either other icons on the page or ones currently in rotation. Again, we may want to decide later that we're willing to change the cropping rules, but currently, only bottom crops are OK. Also, there is no rule forbidding separate icons from pointing to the same article. However, it might be better to diversify things by having one icon point to, say Han Solo, while another goes to Corellian. Those are the situations I've flagged on the proposal page. ~Savage 02:00, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Will the new icons supplement the old icons, or replace them? The latter might be a good option so as to keep things fresh and to prevent the arsenal from growing too bloated. Do a complete switchup every six months or so. Menkooroo 02:10, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
I, and most others who have commented on the proposals, feel there's really nothing wrong with having tons and tons of icons, so these would presumably supplement, not replace. The search icon randomly regenerates on each page change, and if a user never sees the same icon twice, that's probably a good thing in my view. :) ~Savage 12:16, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, DC. Just a note: Some of the icons left on the page do not duplicate anything in the current roster. Rather, there were just two proposals for the same thing, like two 3POs and two R2s. For those, if we want to avoid dupes, you could just pick the one you like better. As for the other dupes, I've offered suggestions for alternate links for them (non-redirects) so they can hopefully be added too. ~Savage 00:24, April 14, 2012 (UTC)