Template talk:Access icon

New image

While I recognize the preference for free content, the new image does not work at all at this size. It's not quickly recognizable as a wheelchair. – flamurai (t) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content#International Symbol of Access now states:

The International Symbol of Access (ISA) may be used to denote handicapped accessibility on articles and templates. This is permitted because the ISA is an internationally recognized symbol and thus no free equivalent could be created to replace it. The ISA's copyright holder encourages the use of the ISA to indicate handicapped accessibility, so fair use does not apply.

The ISA may not be displayed outside the main namespace and the template namespace; for example, userboxes may not include the ISA.

I therefore intend to replace the image in this template with Image:International Symbol of Access.svg. If I can get it to work, I'll include some coding so that it only shows the image in main namespace and template namespace. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days to see if that sticks, and then use a version without the blue background. --NE2 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I hadn't realised it had only just on. Personally I prefer the blue, so if I'm going to revamp the template anyway I might make it an optional extra. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the addition to WP:NONFREE was added without consensus and is at odds with Foundation policy. It has been reverted. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the blue background? I think it makes the whole image look very distorted. How about this (sized at 25 px):	♿
<div style="display:inline; overflow:clip">[[Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol|<span style="color:black; display:table-cell; font-family:DejaVu Sans, sans; font-size:25px; font-weight:light; text-align:center; width:25px; height:25px" title="Click here if this character displays as a question mark or empty rectangle">♿</span>]]</div> –Crashintome4196 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet Explorer has some problem with the CSS that creates the blue background, making it display as a rectangle instead of a square. In all likelihood it is because IE is not processing the CSS properly (IE has a large number of CSS bugs). If you know of some CSS that IE, Firefox, and Opera all like, then we can use that instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent for everyone to download the font to view the ISA symbol. Or we could simply use the Image:International Symbol of Access.svg image if anyone is opposed. But it isn't feasible to use an alternative that no one recognizes outside of WP. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got the IE display issue more or less fixed, and we're not currently allowed to use that image outside the article about the ISA. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Using fonts

Following a query at Wikipedia talk:Railway line template, I've reverted this back to using the free image. Not everyone has the relevant font installed, and it is not acceptable to assume that everyone has a) the knowledge, and b) the ability make the necessary downloads. Bear in mind that a lot of internet access takes place in schools, libraries etc, where downloading is often restricted. For example, I can't download upgrades on my office computer, and as a result I can't see the symbol either. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

While I feel for those who can't update the computers they are on, the majority of our readers will not have this problem. Lets not live in the dark ages just because some people are stuck with set fonts. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that in certain templates, such as {{BS}} for railway line templates (see Marshlink Line for example), using the font symbol where the font does not show up as a blank square, but takes out the entire row. This is possibly due to some adverse interractions between the various css or <span> methods in use. I'll do some investigation on this tonight, but in the meantime could I ask that this is left unaltered for the time being. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Until now, there has been major issues on the ISA symbol. My idea is that we use that. It is used in the real world (no pun intended), therefore, should be used inside Wikipedia. It complies with our fair use policy to use it in article and template namespace, and only used whatever's relevant ot it, like subway stations, buildings, parking, etc. (The decision to use the "free" image was a unilateral one, no one discussed this.) In fact, this is just the tip of the iceberg of recent actions made without consensus in the first place. I don't want to be a crybaby, but if this is going to work, we need to listen to each other, and respect everyone's concerns, not start edit wars and bully with guidelines. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to use Image:International Symbol of Access.svg, but it appears to be against rather shortsighted Foundation policy. If the Foundation policy were not there, there would be no problem using the regular image.

And by the way, I've fixed the problem in the Marshlink Line article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?]
Asking people to download a font to display this symbol is ridiculous and serves no practical purpose. The distinction between hosting the symbol ourselves and displaying a symbol stored on the user's computer is utterly meaningless because there is no legal issue that prevents us from doing the former. We're merely skirting our own policy (via a silly technicality, no less). From a philosophical perspective, it makes no difference how the symbol reaches the user; either way, we're displaying non-free content. The idea that it isn't okay for us to supply it directly, but it is okay to do so by having people download it from someone else is mind-bogglingly absurd.
Given the fact that absolutely no legal issues are in play, all that matters is whether it's philosophically appropriate for us to use this symbol for its intended purpose. A strict interpretation of the Foundation principles indicates that it technically isn't, but there appears to be wide agreement that such a prohibition is not the intent of said policy (given the fact that the image's restrictions exist solely to prevent abuse and in no way limit its use by us or anyone else for its internationally recognized purpose). That's why a formal exception should be established at the Foundation level.
The apparent belief of some that we must follow policy to the letter but are welcome to ignore the spirit (by displaying non-free content in a manner that technically complies with the letter) is quite disheartening.
Furthermore, I agree with NE2. While a nonstandard symbol is far from ideal, it's preferable to code that's broken for most users. —David Levy 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, what can we do to get the Foundation to change their policy? I e-mailed Kat Walsh a while back but Kat never got back to me about whether or not the Foundation policy actually allows us to make our own decision about the ISA. It sounded to me like it doesn't.

I don't like the Unicode character solution, but I like it better than the nonstandard symbol. As far as the Unicode solution goes:

• The problem can be fixed relatively easily by downloading a font. Instructions on how to do this have been available at Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol ever since this change went into effect. I e-mailed the DejaVu project team and they agreed to simplify the process of downloading DejaVu Sans with the next release of DejaVu on June July 1.
• The wheelchair character is part of the Unicode standard and may gain wider acceptance in the future. Our use of the character could actually accelerate its adoption in common fonts.
• A compatible font is already distributed with Linux distributions such as Ubuntu.
• Using the character allows us to use the symbol of the real world which carries the added meaning of restricted mobility accessibility, not just wheelchair accessibility.

Obviously, if the Foundation changes their policy then this will all be moot and we can just use Image:International Symbol of Access.svg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Many people are unable to install new fonts, either because of restrictions placed on the computers to which they have access or because they don't know how to (and would have a difficult time learning). I can't imagine that my parents or grandmother would be able to do it.

2. I seriously doubt that the Unicode character will ever gain wide acceptance. There simply isn't enough of a need to type something that isn't used in sentences or programming (and can easily be represented by a graphic file).

3. I love Linux, but it it's used as a PC OS by a tiny percentage of our readers.

4. As you've acknowledged, there is absolutely no relevant legal or philosophical distinction between using the Unicode character and using a graphic file. The former is nothing more than the exploitation of a loophole in our self-imposed rules. If displaying the graphic file violates the principles on which the Wikimedia Foundation is based, so does displaying the Unicode character (even if it technically doesn't violate a policy). I personally believe that neither act violates said principles (despite the fact that one technically violates a policy), but one of them nonsensically places an absurd burden on our readers and unavoidably reduces accessibility. —David Levy 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's painfully easy to install fonts these days. Just because some users don't understand how to use their computers doesn't mean we are forced to not make improvements. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. It's not only possible for the vast majority of users, but it only requires basic computer skills. I could understand if it was even a tiny little bit hard, but it's not, at all. The extreme minority should not hold us back. -- Ned Scott 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's easy for you and me to install fonts, but try asking my 85-year-old grandmother to do it. Heck, even my 60ish parents don't understand how to save files and open folders. Many, many people can do little more with their computers than access websites and send e-mail, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be punished. A change that makes Wikipedia more difficult for people to use is not an "improvement."

2. Again, many people access the Internet via public computers (in libraries, schools, et cetera) that don't permit installations of any kind. I don't know what leads you to believe that "the vast majority of users" possess the necessary knowledge and authorization to install fonts, and I'd like to see a source that backs this claim.

3. You didn't address the part about there being no relevant distinction between displaying the Unicode character and displaying a graphic file. Do you honestly believe that it's okay for us to exploit loopholes in Foundation policy? —David Levy 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Installing the font will get significantly simpler on July 1 when the next version of DejaVu is released. At that point, the first 3 instructions on Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol will be condensed into something like "Click here to download the required file. Save it to a convenient place such as your desktop." The instructions will be simple enough that just about any computer user would be able to do it. If you'd like to postpone adoption until this change, then that's fine.
2. Maybe the character will gain acceptance, maybe it won't. Because of the large volume of traffic Wikipedia receives, we could actually accelerate the character's adoption if we use it. I realize that the chances of this are low, but it is something we have going for us.
3. I know Linux support doesn't count for much, but it's better than nothing. It shows that there are at least some of our users who aren't affected by the problem at all.
4. Sadly, the rule in question, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy's "regardless of their licensing status", is not self-imposed. If it were then we could just change it like you say.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, rereading the e-mail I got from one of the DejaVu developers, even after July 1 users will probably still have to unzip the file, but it will definitely be simpler than before. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Many computer users don't know how to save files or open folders. I've personally worked with numerous senior citizens (including my own grandmother) who struggled to learn how to access the Internet and send e-mail. Such individuals, of course, are among the most likely to be physically handicapped.

2. The chances of this are infinitesimal. Again, there simply isn't a significant need for the Unicode character.

3. Yes, a small handful of users would not be affected. That isn't anywhere near good enough.

4. I was referring to the fact that the rule is self-imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

And again, it's ludicrous to circumvent the policy via a technicality with absolutely no basis in law or principle. Either we can display the non-free image or we can't. —David Levy 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why we just can't use the regular ISA imgae uploaded to WP. Probably because the fair use policy prohibits us from using it outside articles not relevant to it. But really, can't we just simply ask the ISA creators if we can use this symbol in articles to buildings, subway stations, or any sort of mass transit organization? --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a summary for you, then.

The ISA's copyright holders would let us use the ISA in this template. However, they want it used in accordance with certain rules and guidelines. [1] These rules permit reasonable use of the symbol. However, the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy says that that's not good enough, that only a free license is good enough, and that we must limit the use of this image to circumstances even more restrictive than fair use.

Most of us feel that this is not in accordance with the spirit of the Foundation's licensing policy. It seems to me at least that the Foundation's policy was written with things like Wikipedia-use-only and non-commercial-use-only images in mind, because these present a problem for downstream commercial users, and can be replaced relatively easily. The problem is that unlike a photo or diagram, the ISA is an irreplaceable international standard. Using the ISA would present zero problems for downstream users because of its loose copyright restrictions. But because it has a few rules attached to it, for no other purpose than to prevent abuse of the symbol, it's considered non-free.

So, what do we do about this problem? Well, after the issue appeared on Jimbo's talk page, we discussed it extensively at the Village Pump. We had a poll. The great majority of Wikipedians supported allowing the use of the ISA. At this point I requested arbitration, which turned out to be the wrong way to go about this. After that, I edited the policy to reflect community opinion. However, an administrator reverted the change and protected the page, citing Foundation policy.

So I e-mailed Kat Walsh, the member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees who added the Foundation policy in the first place, and asked for clarification of the Foundation policy. I did not receive the clarification I asked for.

The next thing I tried was editing {{access icon}} to display the ISA as a Unicode character, which seemed to be more acceptable. But I have been reverted by users who say that this presents too much of a hassle to users. That's about where we are now.

So, that is why you do not see the ISA on {{access icon}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar template

I've just created a similar template, {{Parking symbol}}, 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)

License status clarified

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:

“ Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any other items owned by FHWA. ”

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)

As a closing thought, I'd like to remind everyone here that the ISA is also very specific about being a blue square with a white symbol. The current version of this template, taken from the US Government's public domain publication, is neither square nor blue nor white. —lensovet–talk – 05:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I suspect some die-hards will revert it though :-(  – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

E.g., when painted in a disabled parking bay. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Protection

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)

New free symbol

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)

Possible compromise

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)

Commons debate now closed

{{editprotected}} 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)

Probably. I've added the {{editprotected}} template to get an administrator's attention. --Iamunknown 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think it needs to stay protected as a high visibility template. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm reasonably satisfied with the copyright information provided on the image in question. In a moment I'll make the edit, but as it is a high-visibility template I will leave it protected and add the standard notice. Nihiltres^(t.c.s)

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

{{editprotected}} White Cat's closure of the image debate is completely inappropriate. The ISA image is copyrighted. We do not do consensus on copyright issues. He's very inexperienced in regards to copyright law and is the last person one should ask about such matters. The en.wiki debate clearly concluded that this is a copyrighted image. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)"

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)

I've disabled the {{editprotected}} template. This isn't the place for copyright law debates, and it's not the purpose of the editprotected template. If you disagree with decision regarding the image, there are places to voice that concern. As it stands now, the image is in the public domain and rightfully in the template. - auburnpilot talk 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As noted above, Ned, this is not the correct forum in which to present your argument. You have inserted the {{editprotected}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I understand that. —David Levy 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to add features

{{editprotected}}

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

{{access icon}}

for a generic access icon,

{{access icon|20px}}

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

{{access icon||New alternate text}}

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

[[Image:Handicap reverse.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}]]

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer an admin change it to: [[Image:Handicap reverse.svg|{{{1|12px}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}]]. Its more concise and provides the same features. --Iamunknown 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{User:Iamunknown/sandbox||New alt text}} does not look right to me. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't look right to me either. {{User:Iamunknown/sandbox|2=New alt text}}, however, does. But yours works with either your or my syntax, so we should go with yours. --Iamunknown 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is being requested? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That the text [[Image:Handicap reverse.svg|12px|Handicapped/disabled access]] be replaced with [[Image:Handicap reverse.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}]]. --Iamunknown 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Picaroon (Talk) 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage note required

{{editprotected}} 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=={{Access icon|size}} Size is the width in pixels, and should be followed by px. For example, {{Access icon|20px}} 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)

Make it a doc page, Template:Access icon/doc, and place {{/doc}} in the no include section. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Access icon needs change, blue background white foreground

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)

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)

Indeed, it appears that the symbol itself is copyrighted (see http://www.ictaglobal.org/isa.html). --Iamunknown 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the alternate of having the wheely guy in blue? I take it that's copywritten too? --20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image change request - duplicate image

{{editprotected}} 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)

Y done SkierRMH (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Link?

Can the current template code

[[File:Wheelchair symbol.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}]]

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

[[File:Wheelchair symbol.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}|link={{{3|}}}]]

Epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've changed it to [[File:Wheelchair symbol.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}|{{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}}|link={{{3|File:Wheelchair symbol.svg}}}]], which gives you the parameter but doesn't change the default behavior. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please undo this change as linking to a different page in this case is undesirable and breaks attribution of the image. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Attribution doesn't matter. The image is public domain. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Image File:Wheelchair symbol.svg is PD, no attribution is required. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2020 follow-up

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? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Replace this

Hi,

Replace {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|12px}} instead of {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}||12px|{{{1|12px}}}}}. They both are the same but replacement is more clear. Thanks -- Alireza Eskandarpour Shoferi (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

The word "handicapped" is redundant to "disabled" and is sometimes considered offensive ([2] [3] [4]). Therefore, please replace {{{2|Handicapped/disabled access}}} with {{{2|Disabled access}}}. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

Please replace {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|12px}} with {{{1|12px}}}, which is significantly more readable. I have no idea why it's written like this. SWinxy (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted. The two tests are different. The above requested version caused bogus image options errors at {{Infobox New York City Subway station}} and probably other places. Using unnamed parameters is part of the problem; templates with multiple unnamed parameters are more prone to unexpected results than templates using named parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

SWinxy: If you have "no idea" why a template with thousands of transclusions is coded the way it is, it's a good idea to ask experienced template editors before requesting an untested change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

To editor Jonesey95: not SWinxy's fault, as the blame lies with me. I tested this with the ibox you linked and found the bogusness you mention.

The first test (#if function) to me reads, "If there is a value in parameter 1, then use that value, otherwise default to 12px." The second test at a glance seems identical, "Use the value in parameter 1, otherwise default to 12px."

I've illustrated this in one of my sandboxes, so I see where the change caused problems in iboxes. Sometimes I'm still amazed at how much difference a single pipe symbol (|) can make. Should have tested this before I made the edit. Mybad. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth: Yeah, it's kind of a dumb feature of MediaWiki's template parsing that a completely empty parameter can behave differently in some (but not all!) cases from a parameter that is omitted. I've been bitten by it myself, which is how I recognized at a glance that this otherwise sensible edit needed to be reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding! I'll watch for this and be more careful in the future. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Jonsey. I should have sandboxed it, but to me it looks like it would behave identically. Looking at the page history, I thought as though one of the changes just overlooked an even simpler solution, and part of my thought process was that "well, the second parameter uses it, so why not this one?!". Is it because doing a double pipe ({{Access icon||Text}}) means that {{{1|12px}}} would be replaced with ? SWinxy (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In this case that's pretty much the case. If the iboxes used {{Access icon|2=Text}}, then the change would have worked correctly, but because the first parameter was just left blank, as in {{Access icon||Text}}, the change doesn't work. Pipes can be weird that way. When relisting a page move, a single pipe at the end of the {{subst:Relisting}} template yields Relisted. Leave that pipe out and it becomes Relisting. Odd that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

?!?!? whack. Good to know for the future, though. SWinxy (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)