Wikidata:Property proposal/favicon

small logo or iconEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Descriptionlogo or icon that represents the item and can be rendered at a size of 16x16 pixel
Representsfavicon (Q2130)
Data typeCommons media file
Domainentity (Q35120)
Allowed valuesimage files
Example 1Quora (Q51711) 
Example 2FiveThirtyEight (Q600669) 
Example (Q183718) 
Example 4Crunchbase (Q10846831) 
Planned useStylizing external links and other visually-small mentions of these items
See alsologo image (P154), icon (P2910)


Favicons are a type of logo associated with a website designed to be displayed at a very low resolution (traditionally 16x16 or 32x32, though larger variants exist). These icons can be a great way to represent an item at a very low resolution. They are also convenient for us because they are often very simple, and therefore much more likely to fall into the public domain and be permitted on Commons. I see the need for this as a new property because logo image (P154) usually contains full-size logos that would not look good at such a low resolution, and icon (P2910) is meant for unofficial graphical representations rather than official brand marks.

Side note: Although the property is named "favicon", I don't think it necessarily has to be the literal exact file they use as their favicon. As you can see in the examples, I've selected vector files similar to the favicons of several sites instead of their actual raster favicon images. IagoQnsi (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


  •   Support --Trade (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tinker Bell 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)   Oppose Doing Quora (Q51711) icon (P2910) File:Quora Q icon 2015.svg / object has role (P3831) favicon (Q2130) is sufficient. --Tinker Bell 04:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would expect that in most cases favicons are protected by copyright. Is there any discussion on Commons that found consensus on Commons believing that favicons generally are not protected by copyright and welcome on Commons? ChristianKl❫ 15:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: There certainly isn't a blanket rule that favicons can't be copyrighted. But given that they're displayed at such a small resolution, favicons are often given a very simple design, and simple designs are often non-copyrightable. For example, Wikipedia's globe logo is complex enough to warrant copyright protection, but the W favicon is too simple to be copyrighted. --IagoQnsi (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see why icon (P2910) is only about unofficial graphical representations. Using icon (P2910) in this case is helpful for general tools that interact with Wikidata and want to show small images for a concept. ChristianKl❫ 15:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: Another distinguishing factor is that favicons are usually very small, whereas other icons are often not. Many of the uses of icon (P2910) I've seen are icons that would not look good at 16x16. The small size of favicons allows them to be used inline with text and in other places that other icons wouldn't fit; mixing favicons in with other icons would prevent Wikidata clients from taking advantage of favicons' benefits. --IagoQnsi (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC
      • @IagoQnsi: Wikipedia defines favicon by saying "also known as a shortcut icon, website icon, tab icon, URL icon, or bookmark icon, is a file containing one or more small icons,[1] associated with a particular website or web page". It's not a term that applicable to items that aren't websites. If we create a property that's supposed to be able to represent an item in 16x16, I think it shouldn't have a name that's targeted at websites but named something like "small icon" and have a description that it's an icon that usable at 16x16. ChristianKl❫ 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
        • @ChristianKl: Yes, favicons are only for websites, but there are a lot of things that have official websites but are not classified as "instance of: website" in Wikidata; e.g. companies, people, etc. There should probably be a constraint requiring that all items which use this new property must also have a official website (P856) statement, but I don't think the property needs to be limited solely to website items. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support   Conditional support (meant conditional, not weak CamelCaseNick (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)) I see the problem and I oppose mixing it in with icon (P2910) as this one would have some stronger constraints: usable with small resolutions of at least 16⨯16 pixel and (roughly or exactly?) a square and this one should have only a single best value. I can see this being used on brands and companies and for city and states (some are more recognizable by flag others by coat of arms, etc. therefore this could help). To fully support this, I would want some more examples to see whether we are on the same page on this (and maybe a description of constraints and use cases). The proposed name should be reconsidered as the problem is already discussed in the Motivation and good labels are key to correct usage of properties. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Missing. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thierry Caro, CamelCaseNick, IagoQnsi, Trade, Tinker Bell: I created an alternative proposal at that can be also used for items that aren't websites. ChristianKl❫ 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: I'd be open to giving this property a different name, but I think having two conversations on this topic may cause confusion. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay, then I edit the name/description of this and withdraw the other proposal. I think it would be great if we integrated this property afterwards into the {{Q+|}}-template, so that if a small icon is available it gets shown. We might even show the small icon of the instance of (P31) if the item itself has no small icon. ChristianKl❫ 13:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment if it's the small version of both icon and logo, maybe "small logo or icon" would work better as label. Personally, I didn't mind "favicon". Should we also have a string version of this? Some Unicode characters are useful for that and P487 isn't particularly suitable for this. --- Jura 13:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I consider it benefitial to have one clear property that can be used, so that a template can load it if it needs a small representation. Unicode characters get rendered differently in different fonts, I think it's good to have clear images that get rendered the same way every time. For me the semantics of being clear that the property can be used everywhere are more important then the label. If we say we invent for Wikidata a notion of favicon where any item/property can have a favicon, that would be fine for me but I think it's worth being explicit about that. ChristianKl❫ 13:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tinker Bell: Are you still opposed to this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --- Jura 12:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @IagoQnsi, Trade, ChristianKl, CamelCaseNick, Thierry Caro, Jura1:, @ArthurPSmith:   Done --Tinker Bell 10:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)