As a community, are we willing to accept graphical notation as a form of code that is subject to code review?
I recently answered a question that asked for review of a database model as presented in an entity-relationship diagram. With this question, the the OP's intention would be clear to anyone who is familiar with ERM notation. However, because it was not encoded with symbols contained within the Unicode Standard, it was closed as off topic. Understanding that many Code Review users may be unfamiliar with ERM, I edited the question by providing SQL
CREATE TABLE statements that were directly analogous to the OP's ERM diagram. I then flagged a moderator for reopening. My edits were subsequently deleted. If anyone is interested, the (now-deleted) referenced question is here.
Graphical modeling has been recognized as a valid form of encoded logic since the late 1800s. As a developer and architect, I often use visual models to clarify and effectively communicate complex concepts. ERM has been a standard in the software industry since the 1970s. UML has been common place since the 1990s. The Code Review FAQ states that Code Review is "the right place" for questions about design pattern usage. The seminal textbook on design pattern usage contained multiple diagrams for each design pattern as well as an appendix for modeling notation.
In addition to the established, historical usage of modeling in software development, there is significant evidence that suggests that a shift in methodologies towards graphical programming would greatly improve developer productivity.
Should we continue to ban interchange about modeling from Code Review? Or, does it make more sense to permit questions that express software designs through standardized, graphically encoded notation?