Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

International Ornithological Congress

This is a really bad case of flag icon abuse: International Ornithological Congress. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, SMC, here's an example regarding which I believe most of us can agree: we should not be using flag icons for the sole purpose of representing the nation-state within which a town or city is located, in lists or otherwise.

SMC, I removed the flag icons from the IOC list you linked above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should not have been the one to do it, due to previous long-standing disputes with certain members of WP:BIRDS who react with knee-jerk hostility any time I cross their tendentious radars. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this List of stratigraphic units with dinosaur trace fossils another example flag icon abuse? It seems to be from the same editor who added flags to International Ornithological Congress.  Tigerboy1966  07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL Yeah, I think so, Tiger. The responsible editors weren't satisfied with just using national flags for the locations of dinosaur fossils; they were compelled to to use the state/provincial flags, too. Interesting how we can argue about the fine points of using flag icons in international sports, but this kind of silliness goes unnoticed. Unless you work for the particular provincial or state government, who knows what the Saskatchewan provincial flag or the Coahuila state crest even look like?? While I sincerely believe that there are legitimate uses for flag icons, this isn't one of them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The last thing we need is a nationalist velociraptor who's also pushing provincial pride, right? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember?

When more of our articles used to look like this? I propose the creation of an article improvement tag for "toomanyflags", which I think this article would safely qualify for! --John (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

John, just like the examples cited above in the section titled "International Ornithological Congress," this is not just flag use overkill, it's an entirely inappropriate flag use. No one who is a party to the discussion regarding flag use in sports articles is arguing for the inclusion of flags to represent geographic locations. I took a few minutes to purge the inappropriate flag use from the bird congress and dinosaur fossil articles; please feel free to jump in and likewise purge them from the Big Brother article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me to feel free to remove flagcruft; I assure you that I already do. The purpose of my post was to propose the creation of an article improvement tag to use in such cases. --John (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it not better to just do it than to make a tag to tell other people to? Kevin McE (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes. But there is definitely a merit in getting people to clear up their own messes. --John (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I think we can all identify the logical limits at which flag icon use is rediculous. And pointing out several pages which are entirely in the wrong, does not point out how this tool cannot be useful. These examples are exactly the sort of thing that any well intentioned group of editors could work out with a little bit of dialogue. They are not prime examples of the barbarian flag hordes knocking at our gates.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This {{Icon-issues}}? Gnevin (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I had no idea that existed. --John (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Flags for train operators and rolling-stock manufacturers

Hello all,
As a distraction from the hefty debate above, what do you think of List of high-speed trains? I think it's inappropriate to fill the table with little flag pictures for every train operator and manufacturer (there's nothing particularly "national" about them; they don't fit neatly in national pigeonholes). FlyAkwa (talk · contribs) disagrees, arguing that the flags add useful information. What does everyone else think? bobrayner (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you... totally wasted bandwidth. A click on the name links to the article proper, and gives a much better picture. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. Classic flagcruft. --John (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Agreed (sort of) - My first reaction viewing this content is that this is ridiculous. Not only are these flags being used to represent corporations that could easily be multinational and if nothing else would be incredibly hard to quantify as nationally representative, but these flags are also being used to represent two different data sets in the same table, which pretty much sets off my alarm bells for bad use. That being said, and given more careful consideration, I have no idea about train spotting, except to know that it is a very fanatical and precise past-time. Given that, I have no idea as to the relevance of this information. People who are interested in trains and train-spotting, may find this information incredibly useful and justifiable. At that point, I think the question has to be asked, is this information too obscure and potentially misleading for the majority of users? And in a case like this, where flags are being used to represent two different data sets, and where pertinence is highly suspect to casual users, I would say that they should go.

But I do think this speaks to a broader issue of flag use (or nationality identifiers, as that's what we're really talking about here). As editors, admins, and users we are exposed to a wide range of highly specific, and specialized topics, many of which we have no interest in, or knowledge of. And in these instances, it is wise to tread lightly and judge carefully; just because it's not astrophysics, doesn't necessarily mean we know enough to be good editors or admins. Trains are a topic I know absolutely nothing about, and I think it's better in the long run if I tread lightly when/if I try and edit content there. That being said, I still don't think this use is appropriate, but I'd work really hard to listen to the people who produce this content about why they think it is.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tiny maps instead of flags

Another question for the community!
Some of our historical articles are vulnerable to getting anachronistic or dubious flags simply because we don't have good evidence of what flags were flown at the time (or the modern concept of a flag would have been alien). However, some articles instead replace flags in infoboxes and tables &c with very small maps of a territory, like this: [1] (see the two very small map-like images at the top of the infobox). Is this better or worse than using a flag of dubious provenance? What do you all think? Are there any better alternatives? bobrayner (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How is the little map really different than say... Tibet, France, or Alaska? They're all tiny maps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maps may change over time, of course (and getting accurate historical maps is another can of worms) but I'm beginning to think it's a reasonable alternative to a flagicon, if we really must have a little image to represent an old kingdom in an infobox. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Federated States of Micronesia is going to look terrible as a tiny map. --Falcadore (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tiny maps are a bad idea, in my opinion, and far more problematic than flags. I think that when there is a break in the continuous chain of flags, the editors will have to accept that no flags should be used, at least in the article where the break occurs. Substituting tiny maps of tiny countries, especially ancient tiny countries, for non-existent flags is not an improvement or even a reasonable alternative. Moreover, mixing flags and maps is stylistically inconsistent formatting and a little bit goofy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the examples of color-coded maps of France, Alaska, the Marshall Islands, etc., linked above, which show the location of the subject country in the context of its larger continent, region or hemisphere are perfectly acceptable. My comments are restricted to the substitution of much smaller map icons for non-existent flag icons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this is sort of an entirely different topic. In this case, flags are being used to indicate time period & structure, thus the idea of segueing to a map that would indicate the same thing for a time period or structure for which there was no flag. I like the little maps, they're hard to read, but they represent an opportunity for stored data (i.e. if I'm interested in seeing how the territory looked at the time, a tiny icon that could link to a larger image would be great. However if they're being used in a continuum it really needs to be one or the other. Changes in boarders/government should either be represented with a flag, or with a map, or with a name, or with a date, but not a combination. Once you do that, it's too easy to lose the reasoning behind the information that you're conveying. So in this case, maps seem entirely inappropriate as they are one of several nomenclatures being used to represent the same data, it needs to be one or the other, not both.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Please not maps. Just imagine what maps we would use for Israel/Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Cyptus/Northern Cyprus, China/Tibet/Taiwan. and other flash points? Would using a map of Greater Germany ca. 1942 indicate that the person so tagged approved of such borders of Germany (the Nazi flag and Soviet flag have the same problems, but the governmental entities are understood to be represented by the flags, not necessarily so a map. It would be ironic to have a map of the Union states only to be affixed to Abe Lincoln-related stuff.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, like so many "OMG Flashpoint" arguments, I doubt that that would be a really serious problem that people couldn't figure out with some earnest discussion. Territorial maps have been a common encyclopedic means of displaying information about a dynasty/era/regime. I don't like the mixed usage above, but I don't see anything inherently problematic about maps.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, the value of flags is that they can provide an at-a-glance indication of metadata (at least in some cases; I do recognise that not all flags are familiar to many readers and that some flags are very similar to each other). A map, at 20some pixels in size, however, is going to be almost completely unhelpful. I get that linking to a larger map would serve more than one useful purpose, but a map thumbnail, at the sizes we're talking about, is likely to be most unhelpful. Imho :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons for cities and counties

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 19#Country data templates for cities and counties in Maryland for a discussion about flag icon usage for cities and counties (e.g. as seen in the infobox for Silver Spring, Maryland). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Has this debate moved forward?

• I am not attempting to be cynical, or suggest no progress has been made. I just want to make that clear off the bat.

A lot has been said here on both sides, but we seem to be at a point of avoidance rather than solution. As far as I can see arguments are split along the lines of:

1.) We don't need uncontrolled decorative fluff. This inhibits use for color blind users. There are a very limited number of times and places at which a flag may be appropriate, but that is not representative of the majority of use. Flag use is of such a highly emphatic nature that it overwhelms all other information posted.

2.) This is a useful tool for expressing information that is both more efficient and more effective than other similar resources. This information is common enough to primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as to be a useful secondary identifier for athletes (and potentially other notable teams or individuals). Most use has been effective and most specific problems that arise are either clearly solvable through group discussion, or are of a theoretical nature and there is no actual evidence that they need addressing. Flags are exactly as representative as ISO codes but clearer.

I may be missing something here, but I think that sums it up. Does anyone feel moved to discuss these positions, or like any progress can be made to meet between them?Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the two positions are mutually exclusive. Flags are useful as a quick and visual shorthand when nationality information must be presented in a compact form. But they are also way overused in situations where nationality doesn't need immediate visual identification. Powers ^T 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, do you have any ideas of how to better navigate over-use. I don't personally think over use is really an issue. Pages like those listed above draw a clear line as to what should not be acceptable, but I don't think that represents the majority of wikipedia use. That does not mean that I am uninterested in examining ways to clarify use for users. And that given clarification some common use may become unnacceptable.

Certainly guidelines such as Tables using flags should not require more than one guideline for establishing representative nationality. That is to say if you are developing a table that uses flagicons and you find that you are getting nationality from one set of criteria (i.e. where a singer was born) for some information and from another set of criteria (where a band was formed) for other information, then that is poor usage. Similarly a guideline that says something along the lines that A table should not use flags to display nationality for multiple data sets (flags next to names of actors, and next to names of broadcast companies). That would eliminate a lot of the chaff out there but I want to hear if people think any other points can be evolved from the stances above.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me a bit. Powers ^T 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking if you have any advice as to how to develop guidelines to use them less? What do you find excessive, and how could we better spell that out? Because the way MosFlag is currently written more or less allows for the majority of current wikipedia use.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that comment, LtPowers. Flags aren't particularly useful as a quick visual shorthand. Beyond the colourblindness issues and confusion issues, you've got the problem that most people can't recognize most flags. Hard to get specific numbers on it, but I'd bet that if people were tested over the contents of Gallery of sovereign-state flags, most couldn't score over 20%.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we would actually have to have those numbers to prove that though, otherwise it's pure conjecture. I would certainly say that they are more well recognized, taught, and known than ISO codes and are therefor a better tool than that. I think trying to find the exact line of effectiveness that they have or need to have would be an incredibly cumbersome task. How common does an identifier need to be before it is acceptable for use? I don't think wikipedia is really designed to develop that kind of information on it's own.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would bet that most people wouldn't score 100 % if you asked them to name the countries, let alone recognise their flags and various country codes. However, in most cases from sport you would only need the "famous 20 %" and perhaps one or two unknowns which you could easily look up if desired. In any case, even if you can't tell which country the bronze medallist represented you can easily tell that it was not the same as the country that won both gold and silver. It is a fact that flags convey information, and it is reasonably common to understand a fair number of them, and at least tell the difference between them if you don't know the exact countries involved. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say your observations and two choices are pretty close to how it's split. And the two choices you listed are mostly incompatible. I think with the general guidelines wiki has, and specific project guidelines, most of the time we have things covered. When we don't discussions usually work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this: "We don't need uncontrolled decorative fluff. This [may inhibit] use for color blind users. There are a very limited number of times and places at which a flag may be appropriate" and this: "This is a useful tool for expressing information that is both more efficient and more effective than other similar resources. This information is common enough to primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as to be a useful secondary identifier for athletes (and potentially other notable teams or individuals). Most use has been effective and most specific problems that arise are either clearly solvable through group discussion, or are of a theoretical nature and there is no actual evidence that they need addressing Flags are exactly as representative as ISO codes but clearer."
In the context of sports the use of ISO codes is problematic as most sports use their own system or the IOC codes, and the use of flags is ubiquitous. Wikipedia should reflect this real life prevalence. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not previously been involved in this (rather long) discussion, but I'm inclined to agree with 88.88.165.222. I do understand that some articles suffer dramatically from flag overuse, but they are also a convenient means of providing metadata in a small space. In sports, in particular, I'm strongly in favour of the use of flags as a terse means of indicating nationality. (My particular bugbear is I would like to see them next to team names in football players' infoboxes, where many prominent players in the English Premier League have played for less well-known teams abroad). I would strongly support amending MOS:FLAG to reflect current use. Whilst they would provide no added information for colourblind users, I am not convinced that 22×20px of ambiguous information that will have a link and tooltip to explain it presents the worst accessibility issue that Wikipedia faces. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't often agree with Kww, but I do on this. Flags as used on articles about individuals, regardless of their profession, are purely decorative and non-informative as compared to the simplest way of presenting the information: the name of the country. They have their use in articles about national teams, for they are in this case widely used as a visual shortcut. I would use this even with individuals on what are clearly national teams: a list of Olympic winners should include the nationality they represented in the Olympics, in words. Adding the flag makes the article slower to access, and harder to read. Our use of them here in tables is immature and inappropriate DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DGG, could you provide linked examples to the tables where you consider the use inappropriate? I am in the process of preparing a more structured discussion, and it will include linked examples of various uses in order to focus the discussion and make !voting more meaningful. I am trying to include examples that represent the full range of opinions above, including yours. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Try any Moto GP article, e.g. 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On the assumption that the flags (or other indication of nationality) are actually used when reporting results and startlists in this particular motorsport the main problem is the use of subnational flags for the venues.
Update: A quick check revealed that nationality is used on the official results. I find flags preferable to a three letter code for conveying the info for the reason given above. (In the linked document MAL is used for Malaysia instead of MAS or MYS.) Presumably flags are used in the broadcasts. BTW:In the linked comparison the flags are purely decoration, but I cannot see how the use in there can be considered negative for Wikipedia as a whole. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not very informative, though. I recognized three of the flags used in the article (US, Japan, and the UK). I did far better with the three letter codes used in the later table, and even managed to guess Catalan correctly. The flags did nothing but interfere with information.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The presence of flag doesn't remove or hide the other information, so I don't see how it interferes with information. With both the code (notwithstanding the issue of different code systems) and the flag it is far more likely that the reader will get the information. In any case, I believe the average reader will recognise somewhat more than three flags; furthermore the flags are linked (and for devices with the capability they have pop-up text), so it easy to check those you do not recognise. (In my case Aragon, Valencian community and Indiana, which should be removed unless subnational flags are used in the sport.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Most cases where they had the flag and no 3-letter code, I had no idea what the flag meant unless I hovered or clicked. I don't normally find things where I have to hover or click to read particularly readable. It's not natural to read with my hands.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If they had only the three letter code and no flag I would lose RSM and be unsure about others as they are potentially ambiguous. Wikipedia should not be written exclusively for people who don't know flags, nor should it be written exclusively for people who know almost all flags. The mouse-over text and linking is a reasonable way of dealing with the varying knowledge of the readers. However I agree that it would be preferable to include both flag and country where possible (with country code where space is limited), hence my proposal below. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

At a point in time (now) when much of computing contains information that must be clicked on, hovered over, highlighted, or otherwise manipulated I don't think that the action of having to put your mouse over an icon greatly hinders readability for the vast majority of users. When looking at a list of 50 or more people I find it much easier to differentiate between them with the addition of a flag as an identifier than an ISO code. It may be easier to "guess" an unfamiliar ISO code, but I would say that far fewer are known, and thus more guessing is required, so I have serious doubts that it improves access or readability in any clear way.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Propososal for startlists (temporary), final results and lists of World records

Withdrawn as a specific proposal. I still think the principle is sound. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Both flags and nationality are widely used in sports, even when the sport has no official competition where the athletes represent their country. Wikipedia is not improved by not reflecting this real life usage. I therefore propose that something similar to this is added to the MOS:
"The use of nationality in startlists, final results, lists of World Records and similar lists is encouraged. Where possible the nationality should be its own column, with both flag (not necessarily the national flag) and country name (not necessarily the official country name, or even an independent country). Where this is not possible the flag should be given with the country code (similar to Template:FlagIOCathlete:  John Smith (MAS) changed to  John Smith (MAL) for the Moto GP in the section above). If no country code is used in the sport the flag can be given on its own. If the use of flags causes problems (e.g. copyright issues) on a particular page this can be brought up and if necessary changed on the affected pages."
This proposed change to the MOS better reflects both real life usage and the current use on Wikipedia. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) )

• Oppose The usage of flags vs. codes in a particular sport has no relevance to what our coverage should entail. It's a stylistic issue, and the styling of a news presentation or an awards show is of no relevance to the styling of an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to your second sentence, but disagree with your conclusion. Nationality, often including flags, are used in "sport encyclopedias" or "sport almanacs" both of which match Wikipedia's extended definition of "encyclopedia". 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure they do. They also all have their own unique equivalents to our MOS. The way anyone else represents nationality for their purpose is irrelevant to the way we represent nationality for our purposes.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, I have now read all the comments and I still feel that in most cases the flags are an unnecessary distraction which add nothing useful and do nothing to improve the presentation. I am also wary of the phrase similar lists- sounds likely to provoke arguments about whether or not a given list is similar or not.  Tigerboy1966  22:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is not important. I believe a large number of readers thinks the flags improve the presentation; I have enjoyed e.g. the articles on the Olympics a great deal more because of the reasonable use of flags. I fail to see how the presence of a flag can be distracting. As for nothing useful, I would say that it is useful (in the context of sports history) to show which flags nations competed under at the 1980 Summer Olympics both visually and in text. An athletes "sports nationality" is almost always reported, and flags are used in almost all sports. Not being allowed to compete under one's own flag is even used as a punishment for teams representing nations in international competitions. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's going into the MOS, the exact phrasing matters. Tigerboy1966  23:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant that I only want to add something along these lines. My text is sort of a draft open to change. Your point about the vagueness of "similar" is valid, of course. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand the purpose of this, so I wouldn't oppose it, but I think, even the "spirit" of it needs work before it could be considered as a guideline. There's language and ideas in there that I think even those who'd like to support it might find uncomfortable.

Beyond that on a personal note, and for those who continue to push the "flag is never helpful" angle. I was recently going though the list of lineal heavyweight boxing champions after reading and article about two famous heavyweight boxers. I could remember that one of them was American and the other was Swedish, but I couldn't remember their names. As there has only been one Swedish heavyweight boxing champion in the sports history having his flag there was immensely helpful in helping me identify who they both were. Removing this kind of information would only be a detriment to wikipedia. And while some may argue that text based representation would work easily as well, in a long list or large table of names the visual differentiation between icons makes a huge difference in allowing for instant identification.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, flags are a very useful navigational aid. This is true even if you remember the names, and are simply looking for the athlete to see how they did in a particular competition. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for specific linked examples for further discussion

As I said above, I am in the process of preparing a more specific, subdivided discussion/RfC that will lend itself to specific points and !voting on those specific examples rather than just restating our principles and generalities. It appears that we have consensus on some points regarding flag use, but we probably have no consensus on other points. I would still be beneficial to remove those most egregious uses going forward, even if we continue to dispute others. Therefore, I repeat my request stated above: I would be grateful if all concerned editors would provide specific linked examples of those uses of flag icons which they find inappropriate, as well as those which they support. I have already compiled my own list of examples of flag icon use, but this request for specific examples is my good-faith attempt to (a) identify the specific concerns of everyone, and (b) to ensure that all concerned editors have been given the opportunity for their specific concerns to be addressed by the larger body of concerned editors. I have my own biases, but I am trying to do my best to make sure the full range of specific concerns is addressed in the next round of discussion.

Please honor the spirit of this request, and please do not use this subsection for further back-and-forth discussion. Any back-and-forth discussion will be moved to another section that is appropriate. Please do provide below your bullet-point examples of (a) problematic uses of flag icons together with specific linked examples of that problematic use, and (b) those uses of flag icons you deem appropriate with specific linked examples of those appropriate uses. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific examples of flag icon use to be addressed in the next round of discussion:

1. Template:US-swimming-Olympic-medalist-stub — oppose the use of flag icon on stub templates as merely decorative and because it serves no substantive purpose. Stub templates are used primarily for sorting categories of articles that need work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Template:US-swimming-bio-stub — oppose this use because of the same concern stated immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
3. World record progression 100 metres butterfly — oppose the use of flag icons to designate geographic event locations as merely decorative, and because they serve no substantive purpose and distract from other flags used to designate the represented nationality of the athletes in world records tables. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
4. List of multiple Olympic gold medalists — support continued use of flag icons to designate the represented nationality of the medalists in Olympic medals tables. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
5. 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles — support continued use of flags in tournament brackets to designate the "sports nationality" of athletes in sports where the athletes rarely represent their nation, but nationality is commonly reported. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
6. 2011 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 20 kilometres walk — support continued use of flags in the final results (as well as in the table of the relevant records) to show represented nationality. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
7. 1980 Summer Olympics#Participating NOCs & Non-participating countries and regions — support continued use of flags to show which flag the participating nations competed under at events comprising of athletes from different nations. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
8. 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season — oppose the use of subnational flags unless actually used in the sport, neutral to the use of flags to refer to geographic locations, and support continued use of flag to show "sports nationality" of the competitiors. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Template:Infobox sportsperson — oppose the use of flags to indicate nationality (i.e. support status quo). 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Template:Medal — support the continued use of flags to indicate countries represented. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
11. 2010 European Women's Handball Championship#Ranking and Statistics — oppose the use of a large flag to indicate the champion of any tournament. The only place for the large flag in sports articles is infoboxes of this type. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Template:Infobox Olympics Germany — support this use of the large flag to show which flag the country competed under at a given Olympics. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
13. UFC_78#Results support continued use of flags in tables to designate the "sports nationality" of athletes in sports where the athletes rarely represent their nation, but nationality is commonly reported. Kevlar (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Akihiro_Gono#Mixed_martial_arts_record support continued use of flags in tables to designate the "sports nationality" of athletes in sports where the athletes rarely represent their nation, but nationality is commonly reported. Kevlar (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of these examples

I broadly agree with most of the suggestions above (which surprised me, as I thought I was a little more pro-flag than the consensus). I strongly agree with the motorsport suggestion — use of subnational flags to indicate geography seems tenuous, even before some of them being US states (many of which have flags that are very similar at 20something pixels in size).

I disagree with removing flags from stub templates (examples 1 and 2); I think they're a useful (if decorative) indicator but, as they are only ever at the bottom of articles that could (in theory, at least) be expanded to cause them to be removed, I think the point is broadly moot.

About the only other suggestion I'd make differently would be to allow the use of flags to indicate the nationality of teams that a sportsperson has played for. Often this isn't terribly complex, but some team names aren't immediately identifiable to a country, so a flag indicator could be useful; the examples in the collapsed box below are excerpts from two footballers' infoboxes

Examples

Thierry Henry Senior career* Years Team Apps† (Gls)† 1994–1999 Monaco 105 (20) 1999 Juventus 16 (3) 1999–2007 Arsenal 254 (174) 2007–2010 Barcelona 80 (35) 2010– New York Red Bulls 62 (31) 2012 → Arsenal (loan) 4 (1)		Thierry Henry Senior career* Years Team Apps† (Gls)† 1994–1999 Monaco 105 (20) 1999 Juventus 16 (3) 1999–2007 Arsenal 254 (174) 2007–2010 Barcelona 80 (35) 2010– New York Red Bulls 62 (31) 2012 → Arsenal (loan) 4 (1)
Zlatan Ibrahimović Senior career* Years Team Apps† (Gls)† 1999–2001 Malmö FF 40 (16) 2001–2004 Ajax 74 (35) 2004–2006 Juventus 70 (23) 2006–2009 Inter Milan 88 (57) 2009–2011 Barcelona 29 (16) 2010–2011 → AC Milan (loan) 29 (14) 2011–2012 AC Milan 32 (28) 2012– Paris Saint-Germain 18 (19)		Zlatan Ibrahimović Senior career* Years Team Apps† (Gls)† 1999–2001 Malmö FF 40 (16) 2001–2004 Ajax 74 (35) 2004–2006 Juventus 70 (23) 2006–2009 Inter Milan 88 (57) 2009–2011 Barcelona 29 (16) 2010–2011 → AC Milan (loan) 29 (14) 2011–2012 AC Milan 32 (28) 2012– Paris Saint-Germain 18 (19)

I think the use of flags like that would make these infoboxes clearer (noting that not all teams play in the league suggested by their geography and that UK teams play for a subnational FIFA member country). I'd be interested to discuss this specific issue, as well as the more general "MOS:FLAG vs status quo" issue. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your football suggestion, as well as your point about the stubs. As far as stubs go I'll point out that the use of icons on stubs is common (e.g. random picks from Category:Stubs) and is not mentioned in the MOS as far as I can see. A flag seems a reasonably informative choice of icon.
As for football it meets my "nationality widely reported" criterium. Furthermore, European clubs technically represent a nation(al league and cup system) in rankings determining the number of qualifiers from that nation in the next edition. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all the suggestions listed above. Nationality is integral to many sports and, from an athletics point of view, it makes a lot of sense to include non-textual content sometimes. The flags (and uniforms designed on their colours) are immensely prevalent in the sport and a semantic signifier at that (making it more than decorative). In athletics lists, for example, the flags encode information in such a way that we can visually distinguish competitors and their countrymen, much better than we can in plain text, which alone is visually confusing when taken as a whole (think reading a dense book). To simply dismiss any non-textual information as decorative displays a complete ignorance of the importance of graphic design principles to understanding. SFB 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as stubs go, they are obviously editor-oriented technical content and should not be treated as reader content as they are now, but I lost that battle last time I tried. SFB 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You do have quite a few good points there, SFB, and virtually all of what I'm seeing in this section right here (Discussion of these examples) sounds like what should be done. Also, those ideas presented above are very good ideas, and that does sound very encyclopedic and unbiased in representing a person's nationality. Seems like the proper balance between clarity and bias. impinball (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Having come across this I now agree that using flags for the location can be problematic. I am not convinced that it is never useful, but in tables with multiple columns of athletes, the use of flags for a different set of data is confusing. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the clarification

The section 'Use of flags for sportspersons' has a subsection 'clarity' which states: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." What is the it that is made unclear to justify this: the table, or the assertion of nationality? Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Either one is a good reason. Garion96 (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the so-called "clarification" strikes me as an invitation to start an edit war on pages where the use of flag icons in tables for world championship medalists, such as the Olympics, is well established. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Query about a table

Hi all,
Are flagicons appropriate in List of current systems for electric rail traction? bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say not. Electric rail traction systems don't represent their countries in any way, and flags aren't readily associated with them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Icons in office-holders' infoboxes

Interesting icon-related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. --John (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag image for "unknown"

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 8 for a discussion about Template:Country data Unknown. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Armed forces rank insignia

I imagine that the rank insignia should not be given in infoboxes, in the same way that combatant allegiance flags should not be included. Rank insignia does nothing to enlighten the reader over and above plain text. Very many biogs of members of the armed forces internationally have rank and allegiance flags added. See Stephen D. Lee as an example. Please advise on the guideline for this. Thanks Span (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The rank insignia in the Stephen D. Lee infobox seem to be decorative. An infobox is meant to summarise key pieces of information for readers; I don't think that little icon representations are helpful there. However, in the body of an article, I'm not totally against choosing images for visual appeal as well as informational use... bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOICONS ask us not to use icons for decorative use. An image file used as an illustrative picture may be a different thing. Span (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Facile Argument

Sorry about being a bit of a late entry to this discussion, but I was reading one point above, where it states something along the lines of "Flags shouldn't be included because only the minority of people would be able to recognize them."

Correct me if i'm wrong, but surely isn't this the whole point of Wikipedia; finding out, sharing and learning information. Countless times i've been reading through articles and come across something i've never heard of before and naturally I wanted to learn more. I would suggest that, to be specific, the usage of flags in articles has increased my overall knowledge of which country they belong to greatly. I personally feel they should be shown more, but i'm happy to toe the party line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.137.205 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Flags in sports league's infobox

Should a sports league, such as the NBA or NHL, have flags in its infobox for the countries where its teams are located?

The discussion at Talk:National_Basketball_Association#Link_to_the_previous_discussion_on_Flags_in_the_NBA_articles uncovered ambiguity with WP:INFOBOXFLAG. The MOS says "acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions", so the argument was made that games between teams located in different countries within a sports league qualifies as an "international competitions". However, the example for international competition in the MOS lists only "FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games", implying that the matchups are expected to be between national sports teams only.—Bagumba (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification left at Talk:National_Basketball_Association#Link_to_the_previous_discussion_on_Flags_in_the_NBA_articles and Talk:National_Hockey_League#Flags_in_infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since in these cases the country names do not indicate persons/teams competing on behalf of a country, I don't believe the flags in the infobox fall under any of the appropriate uses for flags under Wikipedia guidelines. Accordingly, I do not believe flag icons should be used in this way. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a red herring argument whether or not the NBA article is related to an "international competition" or not. The use of flag icons in this context is to help readers identify specific countries in a long list of them. In this case, the list is only two items long (United States and Canada), so the use of icons is completely unnecessary. (Furthermore, those two articles shouldn't even be linked, per WP:OVERLINK.) The current version of the NHL article is better. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you implying that a league that doesn't include national sports teams could have flags in its infobox if there were a sufficient number of countries? What is the minimum number of countries? Would NFL Europe merit flags? Personally, I think we should follow WP:WORDPRECEDENT and require that they be national teams.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If teams or players were actually representing their country, then it might be reasonable to put flagicons on them; otherwise, no. bobrayner (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant wikilink

§ Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations has the sentence

Some people may feel stronger identification with such entities than with the wider state of which they are a citizen, and editors sometimes choose, for example, to use an English flag rather than a British one.

That link goes to an old version of Simon Rattle (19:10, 17 January 2008) which says nothing at all about flags -- nor does the current version. It might have had something to do with this paragraph under Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra (old version) (current version here):

Before leaving for Germany and on his arrival, Rattle controversially attacked the British attitude to culture in general, and in particular the artists of the Britart movement, together with the state funding of culture in the UK. He was attacked in return for his poor understanding of conceptual and visual art.

-- but that's just a WAG₁ on my part.

Thnidu (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and the rest of the sentence seems to be problematic, so I removed it. (Doesn't really change the direction of the guideline as a whole). bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification for road number signs

There is an RFC at WT:RJL and this was said:

“ Changing the display of destination roads could save a bit too. Instead of A38 use . The linking and alt text give full accessibility, to an image that is basically text anyway (unlike the rather elaborate shields, the shape has meaning).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC) ”

I am seeking a clarification, is "" MOSICON compliant? –Fredddie™ 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If it has an appropriate link and alt text then I think it's OK from an accessibility perspective, and it's much less unwieldy than displaying the name of the road twice. Presumably this is for use in tables &c? It would be a bad idea to use an image as a text-substitute in a sentence. bobrayner (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that it would be used for tables, possibly for infoboxes as well. –Fredddie™ 02:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not use A 38 instead? Gnevin (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well main reason is that the colour shows the status of the road - blue = motorway, green = primary road, white = secondary, and therefore adds value beyond the bare text. The A38 is correctly signposted as and at different points on its route, and roads with differing status may meet at the same junction. See WP:RJL#M5 motorway for example usage.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is standard practice, at least in the US, to display the route marker with a link to the route's article (e.g. I-80). The image is not seen by screen readers. In the UK, the link and the image look repetitious ( A38), so the idea is to combine them if possible. The visual cue with the two A38 images is not so important that someone using a screen reader would miss anything important by not being able to see which color is being used, but I suppose "(primary)" or "(secondary)" could be added if need be. –Fredddie™ 23:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone not from the UK the colours mean nothing to me. Also the two view above basically says the colour is important information unless you can't see and then it's not important. WP:WORDPRECEDENT seems to apply here, A 38 (Primary) is 100% clearer to both non road buffs and the blind Gnevin (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Self contradicting?

Accompany flags with country names makes crystal clear that flags should be accompanied by country names on first usage. However, the very next section takes a somewhat different tact, suggesting that the flag can be accompanied by an undefined level of shorthand. Given the ambiguity of something such as COD, the considerable differences between the major country codes, and the fact that the vast majority of our readers are neither cryptographers nor vexillologists, I presume that the former section is correct?

I considered making the change, but given the level of furore this part of the MoS has caused in the past, I thought it best to seek other opinions first. Regards, —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you use {{flagu}} with a country code, and not {{flag}}? COD links to the Democratic Republic of the Congo article, which satisfies the MOS. {{Flagu}} is intended for instances where the country name is well-known, and doesn't need to be linked excessively. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I used {{flagu}} because this is the output that some users will see even if {{flag}} is used: print readers, screen readers and certain visual browsers. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting discussion on decorative icons

Following on from this archived post which didn't really stimulate enough of a discussion, this is now being discussed here; we have an editor who is aggressively adding and restoring decorative icons to infoboxes. I thought some of the readers here might have an opinion. --John (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the personal commentary out of your posts, John, and don't be misleading (WP:FORUMSHOP advises that "Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions"); you have been reverted by others and you have reverted others' reverts of your edits. Also, you've been making such reverts in the absence of a consensus that favours your changes; in fact, not one person has so far agreed with you. Discussing and trying to get more input, on the other hand, is, of course, appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus my edits are upholding is this Manual of Style page, which has been a solid agreement since I think 2008: it reads in part Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have an encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Consider using bullet points as an alternative layout marker. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration. If you wish to change this consensus you should persuade others (probably here would be best) that this is not a good stance to take. If you wish a certain series of articles to diverge from the MoS guidance, you should present a proper rationale for why the icons you wish to add or restore are not purely decorative, which I believe they are. This you have not done. The line about silent consensus is not very compelling; I regularly correct spelling mistakes and wrongly-capitalised headings that have been that way for years without anybody better-informed noticing them. By your logic I would have to leave these mistakes in place. It should be easy to see that this is a nonsensical argument. Please present your arguments, if you have any, or otherwise please stop preventing me from improving the encyclopaedia by removing this visual clutter that our MoS deprecates. --John (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A large red herring, but, since you don't seem to yet have grasped the logic behind WP:BRD and WP:BOLD: You don't have to leave spelling mistakes or anything that's been there for a long while alone until you've found a consensus to make a change; the B in BRD is for "bold"; you may make the "bold" edit of fixing spelling mistakes. If your bold edit is quickly reverted (the R), though, then you should participate in consensus building (the D). (It would be ridiculous for someone to revert a correction of a spelling mistake, but, that the example you chose.)

The rest of this discussion should stay in one place. Your post at AN/I will suffice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion has now been archived, without any support for your position whatsoever being expressed. Do you now accept that we cannot use these icons in infoboxes? --John (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would accept a claim that has not, so far, been backed up by any evidence.

Other people expressed no concern over the use of the images; I've drawn your attention back to those statements enough times that I know you're aware of them. So, you're either ignoring them now or think the opinions offered at AN/I are somehow more valid. They aren't. But, considering them all, there's obviously no clear community consensus on whether they should stay or, after so many years, go. Having discussions on the subject in so many different venues certainly isn't helping. Nor is the lack of a clear question ever being put forward for consideration (your opening post at AN/I was mostly a manipulative and misleading request to get me blocked or otherwise reprimanded; it asked no question about the use of the images).

I've said a number of times now that you should follow the steps of dispute resolution; an RfC in a proper location should give us a clear picture of what the community wants. I even said I'd remove the icons myself if the result clearly favoured removal. Why you keep refusing to do that is mystifying; becoming rather suspicious now, actually. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. So are you saying that if I or another editor removes these non-compliant images again, you will continue to restore them against the long term consensus embodied in this guideline and confirmed here? --John (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no consensus embodied in this guideline that forbids the use of images, and thus there can be no confirmation of it, plus there are still extant expressions of opinions contrary to your own, you don't actually have any legitimate power to impose your preference as though it were an incontrovertible law.

I'm sure you'll see that I've started an RfC below, and I have left requests for input at a few relevant Wikiprojects. I will not be offering my own opinion to the RfC; I wish instead to leave it entirely up to the community to decide what should be done (though I may ask a question or two). Out of fairness, I think you should do the same. But, it is entirely up to you, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gosh again. The MoS does not have the power to "forbid the use of images"; the project does not work like that. Instead we use consensus to decide things. As the consensus embodied in this guideline has been a solid one for many years, and the discussion at AN/I went so very firmly against you, I see the RfC as WP:FORUMSHOPPING and borderline tendentiousness. I also question your plus there are still extant expressions of opinions contrary to your own; where on earth are you getting that from? Nobody, not even you in whose bonnet this bee apparently resides, has given a rationale for using these images, but merely stated that they should be used this way. That carries zero weight on this project, as we only do things for good reason, especially when they go against long-standing consensus. --John (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We use consensus; correct. There is no consensus-built rule here against the use of images in infoboxes; you'd have been able to point it out by now if it actually existed. It's always been and continues to be a red herring. So, the consensus that needs to be established for the status quo to change is one that finds images representative of offices and peerages held by a Canadian governor general should not be used in the infobox of that individual's biography article. Some people at AN/I were against the images being there. Others elsewhere weren't; you've had their words and actions pointed out to you enough times to know who they are (check back to my post at AN/I if you've forgotten). You can't simply ignore them because they disagree with you.

The RfC should, hopefully, finally find a clear consensus on what's to be done. God knows why you think an RfC is tendentious and forumshopping is a tenuous accusation, given that I've never raised this elsewhere; in fact, you're the one who brought it up in a multitude of places (I refer you back to my earlier comment here about discussing this in one location). Given such attacks in combination with your refusal to start an RfC yourself, as per the dispute resolution process, all despite my saying (now for at least the third time) that I would remove the images myself if that's what the majority favoured, I have to wonder: what is it about an RfC that scares you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: Other people expressed no concern over the use of the images, but at the discussion I wrote 3 very serious concerns, and you agreed that they were "valid comments". The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#User:Miesianiacal and decorative icons. I'm baffled as to how you can claim that no concern was expressed. –Quiddity (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Other people would be people other than yourself and the rest who were/are against the use of the images. I mentioned them in the very AN/I thread you link to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood who you were referring to. Sorry. –Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC on infobox images

Since early 2009, the infoboxes in biography articles on Canadian governors general have included between one and three images:

• the contemporaneous symbol of the Governor General of Canada (see David Johnston),
• the contemporaneous symbol of any other viceregal post held by the subject of the article (see Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon), and
• the coronet relating to the subject's peerage title, if any (see aforementioned article on Willingdon).

Should all or some of these images remain or be removed? 15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal. To repeat my concerns from the ANI discussion:

1) The MoS is intended to provide sensible/practical consistency between articles. There are all sorts of exceptions, but this particular issue doesn't seem like an exception-worthy one - If we allow shields/seals/insignia in "Canadian Governor General" articles, then it will spread, leading to disputes in thousands of other articles/infoboxes.

2) The images are tiny, compressed beyond any hope of recognizability. (eg and and ) The only way they would possibly be useful is if greatly enlarged, which would lead to problems of undue prominence, and overwhelming (the other information) size.

3) They're a symbol of the office, not of the person. A personal/family shield/seal/flag might be an acceptable exception, but not these. Particularly because a person might hold dozens of offices/positions in their career, leading to an abundance of images.

In sum, it seems sensible and practical to (continue to) disallow tiny icons in infoboxes. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support removal Identical to flags or File:Nobel medal dsc06171.png. They don't belong in an infobox. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• support removal, too small to be meaningful, and purely decorative. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• support removal, adds no support for visual learning, visualization, directory, navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. Purely decorative images which are in any case too small to be distinct. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. I'm American, and I can't tell anything about what those icons mean or if they're significant at all. They're pointless. KrakatoaKatie 01:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. I thought we'd solved this years ago, in a debate about articles in the World's Oldest People WP:WALLEDGARDEN. I gues we did, given my review of the AN/I discussion and the one on this talk page. This is an ex-parrot. Please let it rest in peace. David in DC (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal. We already acknowledge titles on biography pages which already note titles. Usually those are from the United Kingdom and Canada). I'm in the USA and don't even understand this fascination and devotion to all things "Royal" --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Looks resolved I was randomly selected also, however it looks like there is consensus for removal. The graphics are small enough that they're, well, not very useful anyway. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this go against MOS:FLAG

The section entitled "Other countries" on this article? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that those are fine according to the way that I believe the section is written. Flags and icons are suppose to help differentiate different countries within long lists, so as to help the reader easily find the information. It's when they are overused in infoboxes that cause the most stir. JOJ ^Hutton 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems compliant to me, especially if that section was re-structured as a bulleted list instead of 12 tiny paragraphs of 1 or 2 sentences each. If that's supposed to be prose text, it looks terrible. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Flags from the Catalan Atlas

Hi all,

• The Catalan Atlas is a famous medieval map of Europe, along with parts of Asia and North Africa. Alas, in those days a cartographer couldn't be expected to have perfect knowledge of faraway places; much of Asia is represented with rather fanciful European-style flags. These cannot be true, any more than Herodotus' stories on the same area, yet we have flags based on these, and the flags are used as though they're real flags on many articles about historic states (and their rulers and battles).
• A good example would be the Karamanids. No doubt the Karaminid damga was significant, but the current flag (complete with uniform colour scheme and 3:2 ratio, just like a modern flag) is a modern invention. There are several other Asian "flags" based on the Catalan Atlas; for instance this.
• Should we use them? Since articles about states and statecraft tend to assume the existence of a modern flag (for instance in an infobox), should we replace them with something else? bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This would be outside the scope of this MOS , try WP:RS maybe? Gnevin (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Flags for networks with Super Bowl broadcast rights

I'd appreciate a reality check here. It's one of those instances where "I may be wrong, but I'm certain." So I may need support or I may need a troutslap. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right no need for the flags Gnevin (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please join the conversation on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A different question about flagicons

Hi all,
Is it appropriate to use flagicons like this?

Airdate: February 17, 2013

• Los Angeles, California, United States (Griffith Observatory) (Starting Line)
• Los Angeles (Los Angeles International Airport) to Motu Mute, Bora Bora, French Polynesia , France (Bora Bora Airport)
• Motu Piti A'au (Eden Beach)
• Motu Piti A'au (Motu Café)

That's taken from The Amazing Race 22, but there are lots of other Amazing Race articles with similar usage. I'm concerned that using little flag pictures in the middle of running text is a bad idea, as is the use of subnational flags. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons should only be used in lists and charts. This is obviously being used within the text of a paragraph and is a major no-no. JOJ ^Hutton 17:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If there are no other objections, I should try to clean up some of this. bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears as though the editors of these pages have invented their own icons for "pit stops", "roadblocks", and other show-related events. This might be acceptable—as long as an icon legend is present in the article. Also, I would strongly suggest that the tables are laid out differently so that these icons are not displayed in-line with prose text, but are perhaps in separate table cells. They would be far more effective to serve their intended purpose as a page-navigation aid if they are aligned better. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would of considered invention explicitly banned by WP:OI Gnevin (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What part of OI is relevant?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how this is original research. The icons rendered by {{TAR clue}} are clearly navigation aids on the Amazing Race pages and are not being presented as anything more than that. They are defined by a legend at the top of each section in which they're used, so that's fine. To my eyes, the big problem is that they are used inline with the text, so there is no consistent table or list alignment that would reinforce the navigational purpose of the icons. Also, these tables also have national (and subnational!) flag icons rendered inline, and the flags serve no useful purpose in these lists. My recommendation for cleanup is to remove the flags and to create a table format in which the race icons can be more effective for their intended purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all! bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Formula One

Hi, I am contributor on the WikiProject Formula One. We currently have an ongoing discussion regarding the use of flags in the scope of our project. There are two related issues where be don't seem to be able to reach a consensus on. That's is why pose the question here in hope of receiving a neutral answer by the users who formulated the MOS and who are not involved in the our discussion on the WikiProject. It translates to this:

• Is it acceptable based on the MOS guidelines to use flags in combination with Grands Prix names taking into account that's how these Grands Prix historically took place. They would be used in this function exclusively in lists such as calendars, season overview tables and results matrices. They would not be there in purely decorative function as they would also provide useful links for the readers to the pages of the entities these flags stand for. This function is not filled by the Grands Prix names as they only link to the Grand Prix pages.

• Is it acceptable based on the MOS guidelines to use subnational and supernational flags in combination with Grands Prix names if these Grand Prix where held under those flags taking into account that's how these Grands Prix historically took place. The location and the manner in which they would be used would be identical to those mentioned above

It would be very helpful for us if we could get an answer on this matter as we seem to have reached some kind of deadlock at the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the proposal is for flags to represent the name of the event, and specifically not where the event took place. That is the exact nature of this proposal. For example, using the flag of San Marino to represent the San Marino Grand Prix, despite the fact that every running of this race has taken place in Italy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the best guidance here is to think of the icons as simple symbols. They are used to represent longer phrases of text (event names, in this case) because of space considerations in table layouts. You could accomplish the same thing with a three-letter abbreviation or with typographical symbols, perhaps. But the key thing is that you likely need a legend in all these cases, since any of these symbol choices is not 100% intuitive. On F1 articles, I know you've had problems with representing the Pacific Grand Prix, for example, with the completely unrelated flag of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community being used simply because it has "Pacific" in the title!

It seems as though the current consensus (e.g. 2013 Formula One season#Drivers' standings) is to use both the three letter abbreviation and the flag icon, but no legend (although the key is present to explain colour coding in the table). In that case, I suppose you have to decide what is the purpose of the flag icon when you already have an abbreviation? Is it to support the same message (i.e. and SMR both mean "San Marino Grand Prix", or is it to convey a different message (i.e. flag icon represents the country in which the race was held)?

Whatever you decide, it needs to be explained in the table notes on each page. Any reader who is not intimately familiar with the conventions of your project aren't going to be able to figure it out. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses so far, but I like to point out that the question does not only relate to the Drivers' and Constructors' standings matrices. It mainly relates to the calendar and the season overview table (the one with all the Grands Prix, the pole positions, the fastest laps, the race winners, the winning constructors and the links to race reports). The matrices furth down just repeat the information regarding flags from the earlier tables. So the question is wether it is acceptable based on MOS to use the flags under which these Grands Prix historically took place (including sub- and super national flags where that was the case) in combination with their names in the first two tables as well as on the Grands Prix pages of course. Tvx1 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apart from flagicons representing the place where a race was held, I'm more concerned about the use of flagicons next to drivers and team names. Drivers aren't racing for national teams, they're not representing their country; they drive for a team like "Lotus" or "Benetton" &c. Flagicons there place undue emphasis on the nationality of a driver or team, and they are often actively misleading because the subjects don't fit into one neat little national pigeonhole. Among drivers, Nico Rosberg springs to mind; among teams, well, Red Bull is far from the worst example - it gets cute little Austrian flag pictures in every table, but the team is based in the UK and uses engines from a French supplier. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a discussion for another time, and it has been on several occasions. Drivers and teams do represent their countries, and their flags and national anthems are used at every race and throughout media coverage. Nationalities displayed of drivers and teams are strictly sporting nationalities, i.e. the countries they represent in the sport per the FIA, the governing body. Their citizenship nationality is not represented by any flags. Right now, we're concerned with flags being used for races – note specifically not where the race was held, but the supposed "nationality of the race". Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I wandered over to 2013 Formula One season, where Red Bull is repeatedly given a little Austrian flag which links to Austria even though it's based in the UK, and Rosberg is repeatedly given a single German flag which links to Germany even though he's a dual national. Neither gets any kind of disclaimer to excuse misleading readers. This deceptive content underlines why flagicons are such a problem. bobrayner (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull have an Austrian constructor licence, and represent Austria because the team is owned by Red Bull GmbH. Most of the teams have bases in more than one country. Likewise Rosberg has a German licence and represents Germany even though he also holds Finnish citizenship through his father. The flags are to show which countries they represent in F1, not necessarily their citizenship or country of residence. Explanations are always on the subject's individual page, in the first paragraph in Rosberg's case, and I'm not sure we can give an explanation on every page where they appear; there are hundreds. I disagree that the flags used for each driver/team are deceptive – the nationalities shown are strictly dictated by the FIA licences. That said, I am personally not keen on the repetition of these flags – once is probably enough. In the case of the season articles it could be in the "Teams and drivers" section. An explanation could perhaps be given there to explain the flags. I don't think flags are needed in the other sections, but that isn't a popular view within the project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "Red Bull have an Austrian constructor licence, and represent Austria because the team is owned by Red Bull GmbH." Do you have a source for that?

• Neither the FIA sporting regulations, nor the technical regulations, discuss constructor nationality. Nor do the FIA's classifications. Nor do the FIA regs mention anything about ultimate ownership of the constructor.
• Just for fun, "Austrian constructor licence" gets zero google hits. I didn't get any hits when googling in German either.

This concept of a "sporting nationality" being a discrete concept separate from actual nationality appears to have little foundation in f1 reality, and yet we're using it to put thousands of little flag pictures next to names, even when it misleads readers. bobrayner (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you want a source for, that they're Austrian or owned by Red Bull GmBH? For the last six races they've wound up flying the Austrian flag on the podium and playing the Austrian anthem. They're an Austrian team [2], and Mateschitz had kittens when the Chinese played 'God Save the Queen' after their first win [3]. Marussia are "extremely proud to be competing under a Russian licence" [4]. Force India was formed at Silverstone "under the Indian licence" [5].

Sporting Regs Appendix 2 contains the application form for a constructor intending to participate in F1. The section "Constructor's Details of Entry" (separate from the Applicant's (Owner's) details) requires the details of the constructor's national competitor licence. Note that this is separate from the Applicant's country of incorporation and/or residence. Sporting Regs Appendix 3.3 (Anthems) "The national anthem of the winning driver and winning team will be played. The Nationalities of the teams and drivers will be notified to the organiser by the FIA and will accord with Article 112 of the Code.". Whoever owns a team, in general terms that's actually not what we're talking about. A team's nationality tends to stay the same year on year, unless the name of the constructor changes, for example when Renault became Lotus [6]. We're talking about the licence they have to have in order to take part in the sport. That licence is validated by the FIA but is issued by the motor sport authority in the country where the constructor applies for it and it's fixed for the season. The nationality on the licence is the country the team represents, same for the drivers. It is on occasions extremely important, such as the recent Mercedes testing controversy, when the FIA stipulated that no member of the judging panel could be of the same nationality as the team (German) [7]. I appreciate that it's not always crystal clear but I reject the notion that anyone is being misled. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to get into it again with the Formula One crowd, but I will say this. That is the one wikiproject that overuses flag icons the most.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an unfounded attack on our project. I if you do a bit more research you will see that other projects such as WikiProject Motorsport and others use flags in a similar quantity. I came here to pose an honest question in hope of getting a neutral answer based on your guidelines and this is not the sort of response I expected. Tvx1 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I understand JOJ's point, I must say. I am in favour of some flags in our project but I have successfully campaigned for others to be removed (or reduced in frequency) and I have tried to get rid of certain flags on a number of occasions, but getting a consensus for it ain't easy. If you have an opinion on flags used in conjunction with the names of races as opposed to their location, we'd be happy to hear it. If not, we understand why not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I sympathise with JOJ's position, but I can think of one other (sporting) wikiproject where flagicons are even more entrenched ;-) bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On a more serious point, I'm concerned about this concept of a "sporting nationality". When readers are shown the little flag picture it doesn't have a warning sign saying "Sporting nationality only. Actual nationality may differ. Consult a geographer before forming any opinion on where the subject is actually located." Readers just see a flagicon, and that flagicon is often misleading, and it's always undue emphasis on one particular characteristic. bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec):::Its basically come down to just a few hold outs. Hockey, Golf, and Tennis as well as Formula One tend to be the most notable holdouts. In my opinion I don't really mind the icons unless they are used in the infobox. Using them in infoboxes is just a waste of resources space and have no useful purpose other than to look pretty.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Bobrayner's point, in all F1 driver article infoboxes (an F1-specific infobox) the word "nationality" links to an explanation of the machinations of the FIA's F1 licence and how their definition of nationality is arrived at. Any differences between that and citizenship nationality are explained in the text, with no flags. Only one flag is permitted in F1 driver articles, whereas race reports and season articles have dozens and dozens, frequently repeated. This is a more pressing matter, in my opinion at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those are problems. You make a good point about the sheer quantity of flagicons pushing it up the prority list. bobrayner (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Joj, lets not forget roads. Icons for everything over there Gnevin (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It should perhaps also be pointed out that Tvx1 is also advocating the widespread use of subnational and supranational flags. It's an important point that Andrewsc touched on at the start and a point that the Project's consensus has consistently rejected. --Falcadore (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The subnational and supranational flags definitely have to go! bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

They don't exist in the F1 project, but this is what he advocating, including at one point inventing icons for races whose names had difficult non-geographic names and he came here after being told steadfastly no. --Falcadore (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I haven't invented anything regarding this matter. I have suggested using the flags uses by the Grands Prix but have never invented anything whatsoever. Tvx1 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the reactions so far, but unfortunately we are still searching for an answer on our question. So I will put it again.

• Would it be in breach of MOS guidelines to use flags in combination with Grands Prix names taking into account that we would use those (including sub- and super national ones) under which Grands Prix historically took place and with which they were represented and identified with in all contemporary media. They would be used in this function exclusively in lists such as calendars, season overview tables and results matrices and NOT in infoboxes. They would not be there in purely decorative function as they would also provide useful links for the readers to the pages of the entities these flags stand for. This function is not filled by the Grands Prix names as they only link to the Grand Prix pages.

We would really appreciate if we could really get a direct answer on our specific question. I know other issues have been raised, but we will gladly deal with them in an other discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wish you wouldn't say "we" like that when you are WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Falcadore (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not forumshopping. I came here to ask for a neutral answer on our issue, not to make them agree with me. I have requested for the users from our discussion in our project not to get directly involved here and I would appreciate you to do the same. Tvx1 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that there haven't been any replies for a while now. Yet, we are still looking for an answer on our question. Would the proposition contravene the MOS guidelines and why would/ wouldn't it do that? Tvx1 (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a direct answer: Get rid of the little flag pictures next to the names of Grands Prix. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Bobrayner; these flags don't appear to add any additional information or navigational utility and so appear to breach WP:ICONDECORATION. --John (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

{{DYK topicon}}

FYI Template:DYK topicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Icons on opposite ends of a table cell entry

I'd like some independent input on a concept I have used in several of the articles I've written. The view of some within my regional group of editors sharing the same subject interest is that this is counter to MOS:ICON and, to a degree, ugly.

The table at Ontario Highway 17#Major intersections demonstrates my scheme on the top and bottom rows, where I've used the accompanying road sign (which are generally more identifiable by the general public over a simple written name) to insinuate direction. Is sandwiching the sentence between two icons acceptable or ideal, or are both (or the more important one) better placed on the left side? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Whether it's contrary to MOSICON I don't know, but as you say it looks like this is not a particularly well-populated page. If it's not well populated maybe you should just ignore it. If there's sensible reasons for following that's one thing. If it's just some stuff a couple-few people decided to write in 2004 that's another.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it's ugly. It's a little bit busy, but then on the other hand it imparts useful information (the administrative level of the road). My inclination is that, since you've graciously volunteered to do the work, I'd give you a fair amount of leeway on details of appearance. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox as he treads out the corn. Herostratus (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the effect you're talking about, so it seems someone reverted it. The icons that are there now are precisely the kind of image cruft that MOS:ICONS is trying to get rid of. It adds absolutely nothing useful for our readers to add a graphical picture with "594" on it next to the text "Highway 594". Maybe there is some kind of context on Wikipedia where icons like these are genuinely helpful (I remain skeptical) but this isn't one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  07:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

By "our readers" you mean yourself. You can't speak for our readers, and considering those signs are what are associated with the highway by the general public and quickly reveal the administrative level controlling the highway without having to go to the article, I consider them to impart a lot of useful information. There also has been no issue at the several dozen successful FAC regarding the icons. They are certainly more useful than flags next to a country name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Flags on election templates

Any reason why templates like this one should be immune from our guidance on decorative icons? I am not seeing it myself but another user is most insistent, though he isn't actually able to explain why...--John (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

By all means debate, but please don't lie. I have explained to you why several times (including twice at Template talk:Scottish elections), you are just unable to accept the explanation. As stated there, the flag serves as a navigational aid when articles have more than one such template at the bottom of the page (e.g. here, here etc). Number 57 22:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted push to very clearly label things as Scottish even though the reality is less clear cut. That template links to pages on "Scottish" elections which are actually forked out of a more general page on UK elections. And in some cases don't link back to the parent article. For example, a reader using that template would get the impression that there was a Scottish election for Scottish local government on 6 May 1999, and never get the slightest hint that most of the UK went to the polls on that day. I think the little saltire picture is part of a broader problem. bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When I saw this section heading, I presumed the discussion would be about the flags rendered by {{Infobox election}}. But from the example, I think this discussion should be more about whether flag icons are acceptable on navbox title bars in general. My opinion is that they are not very useful as navigation aids. Even in the multiple navbox examples given by Number 57, the title text is centered in each title bar, so the icons are not aligned when the navboxes are all closed. This reduces the aesthetic appeal of the flag icons. Further, there are only two navboxes on each of those pages, and I've never thought that flag icons are needed as a navigation aid on very small lists (two items). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. It seems to fall squarely into the provision of ICONDECORATION, and fails for all the usual reasons; decorative use, overemphasis of nationality, lack of navigational utility. Unfortunately, on doing some digging, it turns out that the user reverting me has a real problem with this sort of behaviour, has had for a long time, and has previously been blocked for it. So I may need to take advice on how best to handle this. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In my eight years of editing I have been blocked once for a dispute at Eretz Yisrael Shelanu, nothing to do with flags. Given that I spent most of my first few years working in an area frequented by the worst POV pushers on Wikipedia and was fighting a tide of nationalist editors, I think it's a pretty good record. But anyway, as I suggested several times during our earlier discussions, you should bring the matter up at WP:Elections and referendums as it will affect the templates linked to that WikiProject. Number 57 00:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Number57 is the only user i've seen defending this flag usage, he seem to have everyone of these templates and reverts as soon as a flag is removed Gnevin (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have forgotten about these editors then: +1, +2, +3, +4. Number 57 16:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Proposal_to_remove_flagicons_from_.7B.7BInfobox_election.7D.7D_templates Gnevin (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• This has come up again, as one user has continued to resist the consensus here, in previous discussions here, at Template talk:Scottish elections and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums that using singular national or supranational flags on templates like Template:United Kingdom elections is unhelpful and should be avoided. I propose an RfC to finally settle this. I will post it here, probably in its own section, when I have time. Any comments? --John (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

flags for languages

My understanding is that we only use flag icons for where a language is official, and thus in a sense represents a state, not just wherever it happens to be spoken. Urdu, for example, could get flags for Pakistan and India, but not for the UK. I take this as similar to tagging a soccer team with the flag of the country it plays for, but not the flags of all the countries it's played matches in. But people want to add thousands of flag icons to List of languages by number of native speakers, and don't believe me when I say this is against MOS:FLAG. Anyone care to comment? — kwami (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not support the use of flags in a case like this. --John (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks

Instead of discussion, there's tag-team edit-warring over at List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks with editors from the Ice Hockey WikiProject asking others to edit-war for them to include flags that are spelled out at WP:MOSFLAG as inappropriate. I would greatly appreciate it if other editors could comment on the talk page and explain how these flags either do or do not fall under WP:MOSFLAG. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you and Parkfly are tag team edit warring. It would be nice if you would just go to the discussion instead. If you continue you will end up blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're aware of what tag-team edit-warring is, but when you continue to edit-war in place of someone else after being requested to, that is tag-team edit-warring. I started the discussion that you have taken no place in, so that comment is especially ironic and serves to highlight one important fact: instead of discussing why the content belongs, you're more interested in discussing why anyone that disagrees with you is doing it wrong. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean the discussion I have been a part of. On the page I watchlist where no one asked me to do anything on? Just because you start a discussion doesn't mean you then get to edit war. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You commented on a previous discussion a month or two ago, yes. Just because you edit-war doesn't mean you can tell others who started the discussion to discuss while you avoid doing so. It's almost like nobody is blameless here, yourself included, and we should move on to actually discussing the content, huh? I'm all for that, bickering isn't going to do any good so how about everyone just stop. - Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked that the status quo ante be restored while a discussion takes place. And, ironically, if anyone who comes to the article from this page re-reverts back, then you are just as guilty of tag-team edit warring as you claim others to be. So perhaps you should just stop being a hypocrite and focus on the discussion, hmm? Resolute 23:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked them to discuss on the talk page, you specifically asked them to revert for you. If you can't tell the difference, I honestly think that's a serious problem that is going to be addressed. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not the innocent little angel you're trying to make yourself out to be either. You chose to waltz right into the middle of an article already in dispute, and already with an ongoing discussion, and try to edit war your way to your preferred version. If you had done the intelligent thing and simply joined the discussion, we might be having a more productive discussion. I've got to head out, but I hope that I return to the productive discussion you should have began with in the first place. Resolute 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This diff refutes your claim that I'm making myself out to be "the innocent little angel", whatever that's supposed to mean. You are also edit warring your way to your preferred version, so you're not exactly complaining about that from the high ground. More to the point, I didn't join the discussion because I started the discussion and you have yet to comment on that talk page in regards to the actual content, so I have no idea where you think you're getting these ideas from, but reality is quite different than how you're presenting it. Please stop accusing me of bad faith, and please start discussing the content. You've done nothing but comment on how you did it right and others did it wrong instead of making any effort at actual discussion while complaining that you want to discuss it, when that's exactly what I tried to do. I want to discuss, you're quickly making it very clear that you're more interested in attacking others and being "right" than discussing; please prove me wrong. - Aoidh (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC)"Tag team" edit warring seems to have gone both ways on that article. If anyone is currently guilty, its you.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So given that this clique of editors is more interested in stonewalling the discussion and pretending that the guideline doesn't apply than explaining how, if at all, it meets the policy, can someone please comment on that talk page? - Aoidh (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above its clearly being talked about above and how that type of use is ok. And wording to clarify that that type of use is acceptable is now being developed to be added to this page. It is more userful to be discussing the wider issue before devolving into a specific page at the moment since there is a wider group taking part in the discussion above. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a different way of reading things than most then, but regardless that has nothing to do with what I've asked. I've asked if it met the guideline, as per the current consensus and guideline. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And people have made the argument that it does. You don't like that people believe it does, and thus you have come here in an attempt to canvass more people who agree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking about icon usage on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons isn't exactly canvassing on handpicked user-talkpages. It would be helpful if you stopped misrepresenting things. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say anything about canvassing on handpicked user-talkpages? By all means explain how this request meets the requirement to be neutrally worded to not be canvassing. He isn't asking for icon usage information, he is asking for people to come and support him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As per usual, what you're suggesting and what I've said are completely different. Asking others to comment isn't asking others to support me, in fact the first comment I made here was saying " I would greatly appreciate it if other editors could comment on the talk page and explain how these flags either do or do not fall under WP:MOSFLAG." Not exactly canvassing. - Aoidh (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded". Calling people part of a clique when clique in the context you continue to use it is a pejorative and then mention they are stone walling indicates quite boldly that you are looking for people to come and agree with what you have said. -DJSasso (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The notification I gave above was polite and neutrally worded, the subsequent comment I left afterwards that you're referring to, admittedly not so much, but by that definition your replies here would also be canvassing since they're not "polite, neutrally worded" either. I provided a notification and asked for comments either for or against; subsequent discussion in response to other editors does not fall under that any more than your comments would. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Icon Decoration

Having read it through a few times, the oft cited WP:ICONDECORATION could be much better expressed and more concise. I propose the following wording:

Proposed wording

• Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative.

Current wording

• Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have an encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Consider using bullet points as an alternative layout marker. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration.

This is mostly a rehash of what is there – clipping redundancy, and emphasising the three main purposes of icons (additional information, helping comprehension, aiding navigation). Same points made in 30% fewer words. SFB 18:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed wording sounds decent. Even so, I doubt very seriously that some people will follow it even if it expressly forbid flag icons at all. JOJ ^Hutton 19:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Member of SWAPO - Southwest Africa?

I'm working on an the Lenin Peace Prize article and have found a reference to the fact that Sam Nujoma received this prize and he received it before Namibian independence. As best as I can tell, since Southwest Africa was a Trust Territory of South Africa, the flagicon that I should use is {{flagicon|South Africa|1928}} for him, even if (and I'm not sure right now), he was from one of the Southwest Africa Bantustans. Correct?Naraht (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be the most appropriate one. Bantustans were not internationally recognised. Number 57 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I mis-read that. I think you should be using {{flagicon|South-West Africa}} - it was recognised as a separate territory to South Africa. Number 57 21:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

When I enter {{flagicon|South-West Africa}} I get Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like the country didn't actually have a flag until independence, so I guess you were right first time! Number 57 08:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the problems of automatically putting little flag pictures next to people's names. Nujoma fought for Namibian independence from South Africa, and is famous as a Namibian, yet a pedantic approach would tell us to put a little picture of a South African flag next to one of his awards for the struggle against South African occupation.

Get rid of the flag. bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags Removed

And now an edit has been done to remove all of the flags in the article(Lenin Peace Prize). Given the political nature of this prize, I think that it may be worthwhile to include them. I thought that I'd come here for ideas.Naraht (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were worth including - prior to the removal, readers could see the nationalities of the winners - that information has now been removed entirely. Quite how these types of edits are improving Wikipedia is beyond me - personally I think it's verging on vandalism. Number 57 13:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, this is an improper use of flags there. The people awarded the prize are not representing their countries, they are just showing the nationality, which is not an appropriate use. I do think the nationality should be listed on those names, but using flag icons to show that is not correct at all. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious even to the craziest flag-lover from the discussion above that the flags were out of place here. People like Nujoma are difficult to categorise with a little coloured icon, aren't they? --John (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's non relevant info, but when our featured lists[8][9] sit unnoticed with the same issue, it's not surprising. SFB 21:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course those were featured lists that had flags added after the fact. There are also featured article lists that had the flags before, during and after they became featured articles. There's no problem with those articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because featured lists are expected to comply with our manual of style. To use that as an argument against fixing flaws in our manual of style is obvious circular reasoning. bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Michelin stars in Ireland

any idea why we need a large Czech road sign icon in this template? Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Gnevin (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gnevin: your edit was reverted here. perhaps we should start a thread on the talk page? you may also be interested in the related thread at Template talk:Michelin stars in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Flag icon problems

Please see this discussion about using flags in "aviation disaster articles". Here are some examples: Iran Air Flight 655, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and Korean Air Lines Flight 007. What do you guys think of this situation? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Gaza... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Flags

Hello, I have read through the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons and found nothing that has implications on lists of flag's, for example - List of Australian flags. Some flag images are excluded for the reason See; WP:NFC. However I have not been able to locate any reason to exclude the images. The article is intended to list the various flags of Australia and if all were included would contain fifty nine images and a further eight if the law enforcement flags were included. Also the List of Australian Police flags contains absolutely no images of any flags because of 'See WP:NFC'. Maybe I should be reading between the lines or something because I cannot find anything that would cause such images of flahs to be excluded form an article that list a countries flags? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Where the topic of the article is specifically a flag (or flags), then it makes no sense to avoid using the flag image for illustrative usage when it is non-free – that is the whole purpose of non-free usage policy. I think a little common sense needs to be applied here. SFB 22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"List of flags..." articles generally have no discussion about the flags - they are just there to show one flag next to another, when discussion about the entity/agency wth the flag is located on a separate page and the single flag use is then allowed. If those flags are non-free, that use is inallowable per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So do you think that all the given flags are of no contextual significance to the topic of Australian flags? SFB 22:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We need the flags to be supported by contextual significance, not for the flags to be the contextual significance. Yes, you can put a list/table of flags together, but 99% of the time I've seen these, they really are serving as navigation lists for the entities represented, and have zero sourced discussion about the overall set of flags, which is what we require for NFC. --MASEM (t)