< Talk:Design
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jdforrester (WMF) in topic Migrate project to Phabricator


OOjs UI icon editLock-ltr.svg OOjs UI icon imageLock-ltr.svg vs. OOjs UI icon unFlag-ltr.svg OOjs UI icon unTrash-ltr.svg OOjs UI icon unBlock-ltr.svg. This doesn't look very much like reuse to me: one concept of negation (the bar) seems enough, those locks are very hard to see. --Nemo 15:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the padlock indicates "prevention" of an action (ie. protection) and matches the padlocks used in en:WP:PROTECT. [is that an internationally used standard symbol for wiki page-protection? I'm not aware of any variants, but then I'm monolingual! :( I checked about 20 of the interwiki links from the Enwiki page, and the ones that had images all used padlocks.]
Whereas, the diagonal bar/strike/slash is currently used to indicate "reversal" of an action (unhide, undelete, unsuppress). The only alternative symbol for a reversal (that I can think of at this second) is the curving-arrow, as seen in OOjs UI icon editUndo-ltr.svg - I'm not a fan of that particular icon, and I never liked the shortcut arrow that WindowsOS always uses (plus our usage of it is confusing with the Windows usage).
Regarding "hard to see", I guess there'd have to be a "minimal size" recommendation, as these 20px examples are indeed too small, but 30 or 40px might be fine.
(I'm not advocating my word-choices (prevention/reversal) as a good guide. There's possibly better keywords, and possibly other subtypes of negation that I'm forgetting). HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I got the distinction, but I'm advocating that it's useless: this is what I menat with "one concept of negation seems enough". --Nemo 20:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nemo! I see what you mean. I tend to agree to use one concept as much as possible before introducing a new one. The padlock icon is a very often used iconography throughout Wikipedia to show page-protection from edits, that's why I decided to reuse what the community has created and are familiar with. If we used padlock on unflag/revert flag action icon then it wouldn't be so practical anymore. Also, I can create a version for smaller application like how it's portrayed here if we have the need for that. I'll accept requests! We usually create icons when we need them. Quiddity: I can see the similarity between the shortcut arrow and OOjs UI icon editUndo-ltr.svg. However the shortcut arrow on windows typically appear on the right bottom corner and although that could potentially be confusing, if you look at undo icons they have a consistent pattern of an arrow pointing back that's somewhat top heavy. Arrows are such a commonly used symbol in icons, I can only do my best in using the same mental model combined with our icons. I appreciate your feedback guys, keep them coming, these are work in progress! MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check mark[edit]

At en:Check mark there are some indications that this might not be a internationally unambiguous glyph. I'm not sure how uptodate/accurate that is though. –Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also pages[edit]

How does this page relate to Wikimedia Foundation Design/Agora icon set and Project:Visual identity ? Perhaps we could add a sentence or two, to this documentation page, explaining & pointing to them? (I assume this page is the "short and sweet" version. But possibly you plan to enlarge it greatly, over the months ahead?)

There's also the semi-related Echo/Feature requirements#Icons and types. I'm not sure what other project-specific listings exist, eg. VE?

Lastly, there's the Enwiki en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons which is about icons in articles (not the site UI) but is interesting nonetheless. HTH. :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can add a line or two about how it relates to both of those pages you mentioned. And yes I plan to add more content ASAP! :) I will attach some images of "icons in the wild" to show usages. These are only a few of what we use, as soon as I'm final with Echo icons I'll post them up here to. We try to make the icons not for one specific use whenever possible, that's why I think including usage examples would help other people decide whether it fits their needs as well as keeping the meaning consistent across projects. Thanks for the link, I'll look at them. MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a bad name[edit]

The 'font' part implies some relation with Typography, which obviously does not exist. The project should be called something like WikiGlyphs or WikiDings. Edokter (talk) — 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 -- Perhelion (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Edokter, with your proposed names I manage to remember what this is. Despite commenting here earlier, I had forgotten. --Nemo 11:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've changed the name to WikiFont-Glyphs, keeping the family name as WikiFont. The reason for this is so to not restrict what this set can grow out to be with other user contributions. But your point is taken, hence, the name change. Thanks for leaving a feedback! MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tech Talk: How, What, Why of WikiFont[edit] 55min. Linking for ease of access. –Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs an update - wikiglyph-starlist, etc.[edit] has more glyphs in it than on this page.

(Once we get this in core this page can actually use <span class="..."> in wiki markup, and can link to example CSS in the Design/Living style guide.)

-- S Page (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I might be missing something, but it looks like it doesn't support RTL currently.

All the following icons need an RTL version:

That's right - almost all of them.

Some comments:

  • Some of these are not very directional, but I included them in the list because they have rounded corners, which are asymmetrical and should be flipped for complete consistency.
  • The arrow icons don't need any changes by themselves, but they need adaptation to each context.
  • The Play icon appears directional, but I think that it should not be flipped: it is based on electronic devices that play music and video, and AFAIK they are sold with a left-to-right play symbol in all countries. Some software music players have this icon flipped, but I find it weird. I welcome other opinions, though.

Thanks! :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Private use[edit]


I notice that in the Wikifont file the glyphs are the in the private use area of Unicode.

This is generally fine, but I have a few questions:

  1. As long as private use ranges are tied to a particular font, like WikiFont, there is no danger of conflicting with other uses, as each use is typically tied to other fonts. The ConScript project is mainly a registry to collect constructed (ie. fictional) languages and share a common private use range.
  2. Yes, it would make less sense to waste or duplicate code point in private use space when they are already defined. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would it be possible to license these icons under CC-0? I think that would make them easier to use as icons. Providing attribution by link or text can be difficult in certain situations. --Yair rand (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MGalloway (WMF): Somewhere on commons is a "bot-work" request page if you want to flip the licenses. Be..anyone (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The page is tagged with {{Outdated}}. I removed a 404-dropbox link, and added a #See_also on c:MediaWiki visual identity#See_also. Is the c:Category:Wikicons still only a subset? If yes the {{Outdated}} could be tracked as ordinary bug. Be..anyone (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Migrate project to Phabricator[edit]

Do the WMF Designers and current maintainers of this project have a rough roadmap for this iconset? Currently it's hosted on GitHub because from what I know, WMF teams are allowed to choose their source code hosting. However, I would argue that Phabricator could be better mainly for two reasons:

  1. Phabricator has people specifically in the MediaWiki and Wiki field, it would gain much more attention there compared to so many that are unrelated to each other. Contributions should be higher considering the audience of contributors know what they're doing.
  2. Phabricator is a FOSS (Free Open-Source Software) project, compared to GitHub that even though hosts millions of FOSS projects, is a closed-source software project itself. Other big companies such as Pinterest, Dropbox and Khan Academy use it also.

So, is there a reason why WikiFont is still on GitHub, even though most MW and WMF related things are at Phabricator? I'm genuinely curious and interested to know :) Thanks!

Codynguyen1116 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Codynguyen1116: AIUI, WikiFont hasn't been used for nearly two years. The icons are mastered in git (which is currently hosted in gerrit and mirrored in Phabricator). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]