If you like things that have no bearing on reality (nudges about politics?), then fine. The original symbols were created because they had meaning. Arrows mean PN junctions. There are exactly zero [original] symbols where this is not the case. JFET, MOSFET (the one with the substrate arrow), BJT, diode, SCR, TRIAC. It's a sub-language all its own.
Going back still further, vacuum tubes did the same thing. Heater-cathode: just a "^" or squiggle. Unipotential cathode: a flat thing. Gas-filled unheated (or passively heated) cathode: round circle. Grids, deflection plates, anodes, etc., all standard.
Early tube symbols had a less abstract shape (like a tight "V" for the filament/heater, and squiggly grids). I don't know about the history and motivation of that change, though I certainly appreciate the simplified, abstract symbolism they moved to.
Hah, IEC or DIN is if you're in Europe anyway. You're trying way too hard. Which means I've created cognitive dissonance, which means you understand the point I'm trying to make, and you're straining to come up with excuses to reject it. :-)
Most recently I've adopted the tradition of using yellow boxes (which is ultimately Altium's default, but I don't mind) to suggest integrated circuits, and a similarly light shade of blue to suggest discrete components.
So I might box the "zener" in yellow, or fill the triangle with yellow. Best of both worlds, and utterly deflates your attempted sabotage. >:)
Here's an example with old-school parts:
Of the hand-drawn variety -- black and white only:
Really, for TL431s, I would prefer something descriptive, like an NPN transistor with a base buffer (since it draws little input current) and very accurate Vbe (indicated... somehow). But if you want to at least throw doubt at the reader, a cryptic box is about as good as any. I've used that before, too.
Not all are made alike. The LM4040 series are apparently PNP types. But they don't spec them that way, so it's dubious to use them for anything other than static reference. A shame.
Hah, standards. The wonderful thing is there are so many to choose from!
Anyone who would willingly choose or suggest IEC or IEEE is presumably a fool... especially in the US.
You'll notice I have no care for explicit standards, and made no mention of them in my prior appeal. I only care about readability, and reading the symbols themselves is part of reading the schematic as a whole.
As for layout standards, I wrote my own, so I don't have to worry about others. You'll find very similar suggestions in AoE and others, where readability is cared for (their unfortunate choice of "NPN" MOS notwithstanding).
Tim