Talk:Favicon

message: When I see that my web server has served the file "favicon.ico" to a remote machine, can I infer that the user of that remote machine has bookmarked my web-site or web-page, or is the serving of favicon.ico not a reliable indication of a book-marking on the part of the remote host?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the purpose of favicon.ico? For bookmarks only? Or not? 

message: Why does this table, or actually, this entire section exist at all? 71.168.82.147 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you can see that there are differences in supporting different web browsers. Many developers are asking about animated favicons for example. mabdul 09:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is fine, but I'm almost sure that less than 8-bit is also okay. Notably 1-bit (e.g., black & white) or 16 colors (4-bit) are relevant, for conversions from or to XPM 64 colors (6-bit) are also interesting. –89.204.153.166 (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File Format Support

message: The question becomes one of how to make the browsers recognize the favicon.  The text infers that if a favicon is placed in the root directory of the website in the .ICO format it will magically appear in the address bar, which is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.7.138 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's exactly what happens. These browsers automatically look for .ico file in the root of the web site's document tree and use it if it is found. HTTPd log files will show the request for this file over and over again by each user-agent that visits and requests it. --RossO (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

text: what else should happen? which browser do you use? mabdul 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coding the Favicon Into The Page 

message: The article contained the following statement at the end of the .ico "standard" paragraph: However, other image formats like PNG offer wide browser support and advanced features like compression and color profiles.
I've removed this for now, just insert it again if you think it is okay.
While that statement is not wrong it sounds like a non-neutral POV, color profiles and compression are not typically important for 16×16 icons.  And .ico offers optimized BMP images for various sizes, in fact it can consist of only one 16×16 BMP for the purposes of a favicon, which won't suffer from any automatically scaling down artefacts.  Other formats including PNG have no "reverse transparency" (the opposite of the background color, XOR 0xFF), while ICO hashad no opacity (only transparency, like GIF).  
IMO this article isn't a good place to compare ICO with PNG, besides SVG would be more interesting.  Unrelated, just because ICO is now "officially" registered this is no proper "standard", it's only a pointer to an old Windows 95 book explaining the oddities of the ICO format (at this time, the format was extended later as explained in ICO).
–89.204.137.197 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG  

message: Please use direct links to relevant paragraphs in W3C specs which defines specific rel attribute value. As i currently see, spefications only defining means to extend HTML to support favicons, there is no specific definition of favicons there. Other references are for K. Dubost's non-normative articles on favicons and these pages are linking this Wikipedia article back! Thus it is not evident what this is really standardized behaviour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.240.108 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the whole claim should be removed, and I just have. The HTML and XHTML specs did not standardize favicons. They merely allowed for a way (through <link rel="icon">) to list them. Pages describing favicons on w3c.org can be considered 'best practices' at most. The WhatWG living spec (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#rel-icon) would be a little more appropriate but I would still not consider this as formal standardization. It also states "There is no default type for resources given by the icon keyword." MichielN (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit removed the "W3C" reference definition, which was used elsewhere in the article. It's not clear if you meant to remove all claims in this article associated with that reference, or just the one you actually deleted. I've restored the reference for now so that the article doesn't have referencing errors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to remove all claims in this article associated with that reference. So thank you for restoring this one. MichielN (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3C specification references 

message: I reverted a few minutes ago this edit because of mutliple reasons:
*'Compatibility - All browsers, including IE 5.0 support .ico format.' - this is already mentioned in the table
*'Avoid 404 server errors - All modern browsers (tested with Chrome 4, Firefox 3.5, IE8, Opera 10 and Safari 4) will always request a favicon.ico so it's best to always have a favicon.ico file, to avoid a "404 not found" errors.' is simply wrong: you don't get a 404 if the link rel tag is used.
*'.ico file can hold more than one icon, no need to have multiply files for 16x16 and 48x48 icons' although this is correct, it doesn't matter! only one is displayed.
*If you also scroll up at this talkpage, you will notice that png has also some advantages and thus this isn't clearly written from a NPOV. mabdul 11:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new addition 

message: I agree with IlliterateSage in his/her statement that apple-touch-icon ≠ favicon. But, having said that, the overarching method of using link rel="icon" (or rel="shortcut icon" for both confuses the issue, and I think if we squirrel the discussion of apple-touch-icon away into a different article you lose valuable context, and this would also hurt discoverability.
What I would like to do is just move the "Devices" subsection to a new (top-level) section called something like "Mobile Device Support," perhaps even "Site Icons as Program Launchers" or similar. With Google Chrome's support for adding "application shortcuts" to a user's desktop, as with Fluid on OS X and now Fogger for Linux, the topic deserves some discussion of these "web app" launcher icons. They are not-the-same-as but also not-so-distinctly-different from "favicons," so I believe this discussion should stay in this (Favicon) article. Also, the HTML5 proposal deserves an expanded mention, perhaps with code samples.
My concern is regarding the etiquette of renaming sections in an article. This could break incoming links (not in an "error 404" way) though, if for some reasons someone comes in via a subsection target link. Should I be worried about that over improving the clarity of the article? --Ernstkm (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a new top-level section for "Site Icons as Program Launchers" (as in iOS home screen icons) 

message: Criticism is frequent on Wikipedia Talk pages, so, to make an exception, let me say:
Thank you all for this comprehensive article! It is the best and handiest source for information about the Favicon issue which I have ever found on the web! --Roman Eisele (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jus a “Thank you” for this article! 

message: The reference "Creating a multi-resolution favicon including transparency with the GIMP" is broken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.99.106 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First reference is a broken link 

message: Does anyone know a good way to block animated favicons? I've tried adding scripts in AdBlockPlus (for a favicon.ico file), but no luck.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.124.115 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking animated favicons? 

message: Should we update the picture? George8211 // Give a trout a home! 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I have a program that takes an uploaded master image and creates all of the correctly sized apple-touch-icons and favicons and compresses them into a zip for downloading.
I am aware that it is frowned upon to promote your own work so I would like fellow editors to consider adding a link to the apple-touch-icon generator as I feel it would be as helpful to other visitors as it has been to me.
http://www.apple-touch-icon-generator.com/apple-touch/apple-touch-icon.png-demonstration.html
CookipediaChef (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have written a Favicon/Apple-touch-icon creator and would like editors to consider adding a link to it in this article. 

message: Published page starts with apparent pronunciation error, "A favicon /ˈf[unsupported input]vjkɒn/", while editing box displays "A favicon /ˈf[unsupported input]vjkɒn/"— Preceding unsigned comment added by RRawpower (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 50.199.255.209 was responsible for that 6 May 2014 change (diff). Changes reverted by this 01:12, 9 May 2014 edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A favicon /ˈf[unsupported input]vjkɒn/ ??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Favicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101225130900/http://egressive.com/tutorial/creating-a-multi-resolution-favicon-including-transparency-with-the-gimp to http://egressive.com/tutorial/creating-a-multi-resolution-favicon-including-transparency-with-the-gimp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone! It would be great if someone could screenshot a new photo for this page. The current one is getting quite outdated. Thanks, Daylen (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated photo 

message: Should the tables clarify whether or not the browser does not show the image at all or only shows its first frame for animated GIFs and APNGs? A set of test pages would make this easier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollyucko (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated icon not displaying vs. showing first frame 

message: I see several comments above asking What is it?  Me too. 
I've been making .ico icons for over 10 years, and after reading the Lede and several sections, still have no idea what a favicon is.  I've also D/L hundreds of so-called favicons, they seem to be images, period, unlike your description.   To me they are just plain icons.  Is my terminology or impressions wrong, or what?  (I even wonder if "favicon" is an obsolete (politely: legacy) term.)
In Windows, I make an icon by creating a 32 x 32 or 64 x 64 .gif (or other) 256-color image, then change the extension to .ico. (Windows displays them all as 32 x 32 in folders and can be associated to  folders, shortcuts etc.)  Done.  Those images I save as .ico in image editors like Irfanview are identical to a changed-extension file.   I think clarifying this is fundamental to understanding, and belongs in the lede section. Also:  MOS:LEDE    <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:B590:65F:FA3D:A071 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it not a standard .ico icon?  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Browser implementation section says that Microsoft Edge doesn't support them but when I look at https://iharare.com/ on edge, I see the animation.
Also, should we mention that chrome and IE display the favicon but without animation? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated favicons 

message: This article should answer the following questions:
In the link rel should the URL be example.com.favicon.ico or www.example.com.favicon.ico?
 
When answering the above question, does it matter whether link rel canonical is www or non www?
Should the link rel include type="image/x-icon"?
Different examples on the net do it differently. What do the standards say to do? 12:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  www? 

message: This side effect no longer works, as all modern browsers load the favicon file to display in their web address bar, regardless of whether the site is bookmarked.
Do any of the big browsers still do this? Should probably be removed —rjt (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'History' section update 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: First of all, please stop breaking the article's structure. You placed this top level section right in the middle of the , reparenting the  and  under the Examples which makes absolutely no sense. Please don't do this. Secondly, can you explain what purpose this section is supposed to serve in the context of the article? What point are you trying to illustrate with all these images? Please review WP:IG and explain why do you think it is needed before reinserting it. Note that there is already a Commons Category box in the . Please also note that many of these images are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at all. – MwGamera (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Examples of Favicons" section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion