Template talk:Access icon

message: I've just created a similar template, , to display a car-park symbol. I've made it a bit more flexible than this template, in that it allows different sizes, texts etc. If people think this is a good idea, I can give this template similar flexibility. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar template 

message: Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up on this issue: the license is very clear – this image appears in the Federal Highway Administration's MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, which, in its introduction, states very clearly that:
I'm glad that this matter can finally be put to rest and we can stop creating a "free" alternative to a stop sign. —lensovet–talk – 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I suspect some die-hards will revert it though :-(   – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That something is not an exact replica does not preclude the fact that it is merely a derivative work; such is this.  Furthermore, since when has the ISA symbol been considered a "traffic control device design or application provision"?  --Iamunknown 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E.g., when painted in a disabled parking bay. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no idea when the ISA symbol has been considered a traffic control device, but the point is that the image "in question" comes from a manual on uniform traffic control devices, making it one. It's a publication, containing traffic signs, published by the federal government. I don't really see what's so hard about understanding this. —lensovet–talk – 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand, but I am inclined to think that, though it comes from a United States publication, that is irrelevant because (1) the United States government isn't perfect in regards to what it should and should not publish and (2) the whole discussion currently taking place at Commons which currently seems to indicate that this image is indeed non-free.  --Iamunknown 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  License status clarified 

message: After a request on WP:RFP, I have protected this page.  Personally, I don't like the idea of using the "fake" symbol, but regardless of what symbol is used, this is a high visibility template and needs to be protected. --BigDT 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I recently created a new version of :Image:Wheelchair.svg, based off of the original one.  The new version looks a little more like the International Symbol of Access (ISA), and may even be mistaken for such.  However, I assure you that this is not the copyrighted symbol and it is a free image created by myself.  I hope this resolves the issue of the usage of not being able to use the ISA in the first place. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New free symbol 

message: I think that protecting this template is a good idea, though I'd have preferred to see it locked with the official symbol :Image:Handicap reverse.svg as this is (currently) still labelled as public domain (see the current debate on WikiCommons). However, I'd like to suggest the following compromise:
*Wait until the commons debate has been closed.
*If the decision is that the symbol is public domain, then we should use it.
*On the other hand, if the symbol is copyright, then we should not use :Image:Wheelchair.svg either, as it is a derivative of the official symbol, and we should use something completely different to denote step-free access. This would have the advantage in not implying that only people with disabilities require step-free access (e.g. cyclists, mothers with pushchairs etc). I have one or two further ideas about this, but I'll keep these to myself until the commons debate has closed.
What do others think? – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible compromise 

message: 
The debate about whether or not :Image:Handicap reverse.svg is public domain has now closed on Commons. The closing argument was:-
:No consensus. There clearly is a level of disagreement on an international scale on this matter. Some sources claim copyright while other sources (governments) claim it is free. So long as the government(s) claim it is indeed free, we have no reason to argue otherwise.
:I am also leaning towards PD-ineligible as well.
The administrator (User:White Cat) removed the deletion tag from the image, leaving it as public domain.
With this in mind, is it now appropriate to change the template for the official symbol? – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  I've added the  template to get an administrator's attention.  --Iamunknown 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, can we unprotect (or at least just semi-protect) this page? I mean it's a bit ridiculous to need to protect this. —lensovet–talk – 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to stay protected as a high visibility template. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By my count, the template is used in over 3,500 instances, so I think full protection is justified.   --Iamunknown 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit complete, the notice is now visible and the image standard. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - the ISA symbol (i.e. white wheelchair on blue background) is copyright. But this template does not use that logo - it uses the black wheelchair symbol instead which has been clearer stated on commons to be public domain. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright applies to derivatives. The mistake of some government employee who didn't note the copyright is not an acceptable solution, nor is it legal. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are more knowledgable about copyright laws than the US legal department? This long-running argument has finally been resolved - please don't open old wounds just because you don't like the result. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From an above discussion, "I understand, but I am inclined to think that, though it comes from a United States publication, that is irrelevant because (1) the United States government isn't perfect in regards to what it should and should not publish and (2) the whole discussion currently taking place at Commons which currently seems to indicate that this image is indeed non-free. --Iamunknown 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is completely unacceptable and a violation of Foundation policy. We have been very clear about this before, and this will not happen. No one, not even the government (unless it is via a law) can take someone else's copyrighted work and make it free. This is not optional. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Commons does not give us license to violate Foundation policy, plan and simple. The image is not in the public domain. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, disabling the template until this debate is a wee bit more conclusive. The village pump or admin noticeboard may be other forums to consider. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do understand that we are talking about one single admin making this absurd declaration on Commons, and that admin being White Cat? It was clearly established that the image was copyrighted, and clearly established that using the ISA image like this is inappropriate and a violation of Foundation policy. Copyright law is not determined by a consensus. -- Ned Scott 15:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a better forum for discussing this issue than this talk page, and a better way to draw attention than an editprotected tag, which only gets the attention of a few admins who look at that category. The village pump would be a better place for this, and I think it would be inappropriate for anyone to edit the template again until the matter is resolved. Please note I have no involvement with the image issue, I am just one of those who looks at editprotected tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As noted above, Ned, this is not the correct forum in which to present your argument.  You have inserted the  tag four times, and it's been removed by four different administrators.  I realize that you are acting in good faith (and your claim might be absolutely right), but I must ask you to please cease this disruption and focus on addressing the issue in a constructive manner.  Thank you.  —David Levy 16:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Luna, CBM, and David all miss the ANI/I discussion that I started, or the notice I left on several talk pages, like WP:NONFREE? The edit protect tag is not being used to attract attention, and the intention is not to have a discussion on this talk page. The intention is to revert the template to the older image until the discussion is concluded. This is clearly something that should have been discussed first before the change was made, and given that it involves a copyright issue, it's reasonable to change the image used to be on the safe side. The use of the other image is more than acceptable for the short term while this issue is looked into, and was previously used for a long time anyways. -- Ned Scott 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were a legal issue, I would agree.  At worst, the use of this icon in the template violates the letter of an arbitrary Wikimedia policy (and even then, there was clear consensus that it doesn't violate the spirit).  No copyright infringement is occurring, with the possible exception of the image tag (which is a separate matter).  —David Levy 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine fine, but as long as you understand my intention was not to flag admins down for debate via editprotected, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 17:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that.  —David Levy 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons debate now closed 

message: I'd like to add two parameters to this template. Parameter 1 will be the size of the image. Parameter 2 will be the alternate text, if desired to be different from the default. With these changes, editors will be able to use

for a generic access icon,

for a slightly larger access icon, or even change the alt text if desired:

I request that an admin change the meat and potatoes of the template to

—Remember the dot (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer an admin change it to: .  Its more concise and provides the same features.  --Iamunknown 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you do it that way then if you leave the first parameter blank but provide the second parameter then the image will be 483 pixels wide instead of 12. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try including User:Iamunknown/sandbox into Special:ExpandTemplates; the functionality works for me, without any inappropriate sizing effects.  --Iamunknown 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  does not look right to me. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, it doesn't look right to me either.  , however, does.  But yours works with either your or my syntax, so we should go with yours.  --Iamunknown 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That the text  be replaced with .  --Iamunknown 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Picaroon (Talk) 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add features 

message: Good idea to make the size variable, but it needs a usage note to explain this. Therefore please add the following code within the noinclude tags:
==Usage==
Size is the width in pixels, and should be followed by px. For example,  produces the symbol at 20 pixels wide. If omitted, the default width is 12 pixels.
and put nowiki tags around the template codes.
Thanks - and apologies for making further requests to this template! – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it a doc page, Template:Access icon/doc, and place  in the no include section. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage note required 

message: Just to note that the handycap access icon is almost always superimposed as a white foreground on a black background. Can we please correct? --16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not, for the copyright reasons discussed above. I know it's ridiculous, but have to abide by Wikipedia's copyright rules. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it appears that the symbol itself is copyrighted (see http://www.ictaglobal.org/isa.html).  --Iamunknown 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the alternate of having the wheely guy in blue? I take it that's copywritten too? --20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access icon needs change, blue background white foreground 

message: Please repleace :Image:Handicap reverse.svg with the almost identical image :Image:Wheelchair symbol.svg (Duplicate image on commons - see :COMMONS:Image:Handicap reverse.svg) – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done SkierRMH (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image change request - duplicate image 

message: Can the current template code

be modified to include a link, such as like this?

Epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: I've changed it to , which gives you the parameter but doesn't change the default behavior. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Please undo this change as linking to a different page in this case is undesirable and breaks attribution of the image. —  (e • t • c) 18:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: Attribution doesn't matter. The image is public domain. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: Image :File:Wheelchair symbol.svg is PD, no attribution is required. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Seems like a more relevant link target than the file page. GreenComputer (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: . If anyone disagrees I will revert on request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link? 

message: Having people who click on this icon taken to the Commons file isn't very useful. I propose that we change the default linking behavior so that it instead points to Accessibility. Thoughts?  talk 09:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a more relevant link target than the file page. GreenComputer (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: . If anyone disagrees I will revert on request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 follow-up 

message: Hi,
Replace  instead of . They both are the same but replacement is more clear. Thanks -- Alireza Eskandarpour Shoferi (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace this 

message: The word "handicapped" is redundant to "disabled" and is sometimes considered offensive (  ). Therefore, please replace Handicapped/disabled access with Disabled access. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2020