Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles

NAC:On review, there is no consensus. The !votes appear to be 19 support and 18 oppose, with varying degrees of qualification (strong and weak). That is essentially a tie. Also, a few of the support votes appear to be in favor of the use of flags, rather than of easing the specific rules on when flags can be used. This RFC is closed as no consensus, so that the MOS will be left unchanged. A new, more clearly worded RFC may be proposed at any time (and it appears that a draft one exists in the user space of an editor). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion

The section on MOSFLAG for sportspersons is simply not fit-for-purpose. Like it or not, flags are used throughout many sports in a non-representative fashion i.e. for athletes and sportspersons who have not represented their nation. I believe the wording needs to be clarified/chaanged to allow for flags in certain lists of players e.g. club rosters/squad lists such as {{Football squad player}}. If there is concern over the exclusive use of flags, I would suggest that we allow the use of flags in conjunction with the three-letter acronym for the country, as can be seen already in use at Boca Juniors#Current squad [as of this diff]. Further input welcome. GiantSnowman 19:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Question Are you proposing the Boca Juniors example[1] as an exemplar of good practice regarding icon use? --John (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Answer - yes; I think it is a good compromise the current MOS and the realities of sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. See, I think the example illustrates how useless flags are in this sort of case. There are only two flags that are other than Argentinian; one Uruguayan (recognised it) and one Paraguayan (didn't; had to mouse over which luckily my mobility and technology allow me to do; not all are so fortunate). Otherwise we have field after field of little Argentina flags. They seem really pointless to me. So, we know that most of the players for this Argentinian side are Argentinian. There's a surprise. So what? Why is this worth all the bandwidth, attentional load and potential for controversy? --John (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman:: What on earth is supposedly gained by that repetitive, decorative mess, a "wall of light blue"? It would be clearly more efficient in every way – editing, receiving, rendering, reading – to simply add "Unless otherwise noted, all players are Argentine nationals" to the top of the "Players" section at Boca Juniors, remove the enormous number of redundant flag icons, and replace the tiny fraction of them that are not Argentine with notes after the player names, e.g. with {{Football squad player|pos=MF|name=[[Ribair Rodríguez]]|other=of [[Uruguay]]}}
— MF   Ribair Rodríguez (of Uruguay)
— MF Uruguay URU Ribair Rodríguez
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Because Boca Juniors is a very rare example of a team that is team that is made up of entirely of 'local' players. GiantSnowman 11:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No one asked a question to which a "Because..." construction is a valid answer. How rare the team is or not is irrelevant. The table in question is clearly pointless, and directly contravenes WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use of flags. Those are not sporting nationalities, but indication of birthplace. Even if it were not an unusual team, even if half the flags in the table were not the same, this still would not serve as any kind of example of why to change the flags guideline. It's a perfect example of why not to, but it confuses the reader as to what on earth these flags are meant to represent. Citizenship? Birthplace? Sporting nationality of their previous team? Nationality of the team they've been traded to? Residence?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"...but it confuses the reader as to what on earth these flags are meant to represent." You obviously have evidence that it confuses readers? Or is that just your WP:POV? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this necessary? Has there been a change in MOS that suddenly bans their usage in sports nationalities? Flag icon usage is so widespread and important across professional tennis venues and websites that it is only natural to do the same here. Tennis project doesn't use them for places/events... just International recognition as with the Olympics. This might be different in other sports which is why no all-in-one-guideline can cover all things... there has to be wiggle room which is why we have guidelines for each sport (or at least we do at Tennis Project). And they have passed muster as excellent articles, icons intact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Same goes for football/soccer - but if the MOS-nforcers (not a derogatory term btw - literally those who enforce the current MOS!) insist upon it, then there is little harm in my compromise suggestion. My first preference, however, would be for flags to be used on their own on sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Fyunck, the MOS has never allowed the kind of flag usage y'all seem to champion. Its very wording doesn't support it, since there is no national representations. I mean, seriously--tennis professionals represent themselves except when they're in the Davis Cup or the Olympics. That's so obvious that it beggars belief it needs to be stated. There is no national organization that decides who gets to go to Antwerp or Wimbledon. That there's FAs and GAs and support in the projects, that's just parochialism, and a preponderance of "project supporters" in those discussions. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Boloney... it certainly doesn't dis-allow it. These tennis players have flag icons at almost every event because of the amount of national interest. And there may not be a national organization now, but for 80 or 90 years there was. Plus you can't just enter Wimbledon with no national allegiance. Players must be registered with a nationality in order to compete as a professional. Wimbledon won't allow the nationality space to be blank. The US allowed Martina Navratilova to compete under the US flag when she disowned Czechoslovakia even though she was not a US citizen. These are all international tournaments. Tennis Project has handled it this way for years and years and years, with full consensus. I do my best to remove all the tennis flags for events and places, births and deaths, citizenship, etc... and let new editors know the Project standards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Flag icons should be avoided since most readers will not recognize the flag over the name of the country. When they are used, they should be used when the nationality of the player is important. This really is only in the case of individuals performing at international events such as tennis, figure skating, and many Olympic events. In the case of a team, the individual nationalities of the players on the roster do not normally matter (they are not playing for that nation, they are playing for that team), and as such should be avoided completely in such cases. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
At Tennis Project, that is what we do. Nationality flags for players in these international competitions, but when we chart a team event like Davis Cup we flag the country and not the players. Since the players must come from the nation we don't overkill by adding the flags twice. We are within MOS with our guidelines, and always have been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
...and that shows complete ignorance of the actual use of flags in sports. In football/soccer, for example, even the website of the world governing body uses flags to represent nationality, as do a whole bunch of other RS. GiantSnowman 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As do Top Trumps cards. We are not FIFA nor are we Top Trumps. We are Wikipedia and we set our own standards. --John (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We reflect reliable sources. TT is not a RS, but FIFA certainly is, as are numerous other sources which use flags. GiantSnowman 20:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well sure, we reflect reliable sources for our information, but we don't need to copy the look we use. If the FIFA website had a purple background with yellow text we wouldn't have to follow that. Likewise with the flags. They carry no information that cannot be carried in text and are used to decorate articles. They look awful. They may cause problems for disabled users. They add to bandwidth and attentional load. There is a wide-ranging consensus across most of Wikipedia not to use them that way. The proposal as framed makes a very weak special pleading for one area of our project to diverge from project-wide usage, in my opinion. --John (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Flags actually do carry information - the country they represent, which also can be represented by text. And for the majority of our readership, they are going to understand the name of the country a lot faster than connecting a tiny image of a flag with the country. I can totally appreciate that readers that are very interested in international sports are going to recognize this, but this is only a fraction of our readers; most will not have that familiarity with flags-to-country names, and as such, the flags are distractions, not helpful information. That's why the limitation is already in place to only use flags when there's a strong national tie with the material, not just because sources use that. Our MOS does not have to follow was sources use. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not true. When going through charts, rarely will you see the full country name... there isn't room. Often you will see a country code which is more useless than a flag. On mouseover the flag gives us the country and link very nicely and conveys the same graphic as they use at all the international tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We can't rely on mouse-overs. And our readership is far different from the average readership of sports reports/almanacs, so that has to be kept in mind. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I think your assumption that most users wouldn't recognise national flags is extremely unfair and massively underestimates the Wikipedia readership. Besides, what point there be in assigning flags to players for a national team when it is obvious by the fact that they are playing for that national team that they are from that country? Indicating the nationality of players in a club match article (see Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)) makes sense because of the international nature of the sport; the clubs themselves may be based in England, but their players come from various countries. Or to take a more recent example, see 2013 UEFA Champions League Final – the clubs involved both came from Germany, but the 36 players in their matchday squads represented a total of 15 different nations. That info is commonly recorded about the players involved in a club match and displaying only the flag is the most efficient way to express that information to our readers. Furthermore, if they don't know what country a flag belongs to, readers are perfectly capable of clicking on that flag to go to its country's article and then immediately returning to the page they were reading; this is the benefit of the functionality that has been added to {{flagicon}} in recent years. – PeeJay 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident as someone that's gone through the American school system that most Americans will not recognize flags outside those of the major NA, European, and Asian countries. They will, however, easily understand country names. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
One - Americans do not make up the exclusive readership of Wikipedia. Just because Yanks have poor geography skills (yes, a frightfull true stereotype and something I learnt during my time living in North America) does not mean the rest of the world is equally ignorant. Two - yes, country names are more recognisable, hence my compromise suggestion of using flags in conjunction with the trigramme. GiantSnowman 20:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As long as there are some, it's an accessibility issue. It is better to avoid it on a global work than to cater to the smaller number that might prefer it. Again, what is wrong with using country names or event the standard three letter codes for country identification? --MASEM (t) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of the "standard" three letter codes are far from obvious when used on their own, and are no more recognisable than the flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Those three letter codes are often worse than a flag. It's why Tennis Project Guidelines don't like them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree that the guideline needs clarifying to reflect the current situation. Flags have been used to represent football squads almost as long as Wikipedia has been around and there has never been a consensus for their removal. This is a common method of presenting football squads on the internet, and is used by several sports websites, including Soccerway, Soccerbase. Number 57 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • WP is not a sports almanac, we are an encyclopedia so our approach to presenting information by necessity must differ from these other sites. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • If we're not a sports almanac, why do we have "Current squad/roster" on sports team articles? This is not a feature of traditional encyclopedias, nor are things like infoboxes, templates etc etc. In truth, we are somewhere between the two. Number 57 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's not that we "must" differ, we may or may not differ. It's case by case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
        • No, we must differ - we should be summarizing, not repeating, as a tertiary soruce. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Most sports almanacs I've encountered summarize very nicely. Some do not. In fact I would say most encycopeidias summarize much more than does Wikipedia. So again, it's case by case and painting oneself into a corner by saying "must" is never helpful in a discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any Changes The MOS already says that Flag Icons are "discouraged" in infoboxes, but in my opinion it should say "Banned" in infoboxes. I fail to see how they are necessary in the infobox at any level. They don't convey any information that isn'y already presented in text. I don't mind them so much in lists as long as they aren't overused, because in lists, they help readers find information quicker, which is not needed in infoboxes.--JOJ Hutton 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It already says that. Why amend the MOS? We shouldn't be getting into a situation where we dilute our guidelines in order to recognize the fact that it isn't being followed. It's better to reign in the non-guideline type edits rather than change the guideline. It's a slippery slope that we go down when we start letting the inmates run the asylum.--JOJ Hutton 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that since the mini flag icon was created for use in some cases, and although their use seems to be well defined in our guideline, it's quite to be expected that some editors would extend their use across the 'pedia because there's a lot of this sort of "follow the leader" around. They are now widespread to an extent comparable with the overlinking that used to prevail on WP prior to this being tackled in 2009 starting with linked dates. If we look at this example, it's clear to me that there is a whole bunch of cruft and trivia, and the flags are being used in an equally trivial manner; similarly, they were used here simply to denote a location; or used here to indicate the nationality of technical staff. I also thank GS for giving the Boca Juniors article as an example – here, we see the sea of flags, in this case Argentine – none of which are used in a manner that conforms to my understanding of MOS:FLAG (see Boca's team page for stark illustration). So, in conclusion, I'd say we should not amend the guideline to reflect (over)usage, but we should instead reign in the overusage in line with the guideline. Unfortunately, this is rendered much more difficult due to the [inappropriate] use of certain templates that make the flags obligatory as seen in the Bocas article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, and yes--I had forgotten all the ski-jump articles, many of which I pruned of flags during the Winter Olympics, and those templates are clearly a problem, since they lend a credibility to those icons that is not supported by the MOS. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there's a genuine, contextual need to refer to a player's nationality in a list, then use a textual link. All readers will be able to see, and understand this, whereas a flag may be unrecognised, requiring a "hover", or "click" where "hover" is unavailable (tablets/phones etc.). I can't see any pressing reason that makes little flag icons more useful here, rather than a potential accessibility issue, however "pretty" we think they are. In short, no reason for a local exception to the guideline which I can see, and clear arguments for text, if and where required, rather than pictures. Begoon talk 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm saying exactly that, yes. It's more accessible because I know what it means without hovering (or clicking and clicking back on a tablet/phone). Your example is ideal - I don't know what the Bosnian flag is, and I don't know (prior to reading this), what BIH means, so BIH (with flag) will have helped me in no way whatsoever, other than giving me a link. There are plenty of ways to present textual links to moderately long names sensibly, tabular and otherwise, on the occasions where there is an actual need for this information to be present. Begoon talk 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm all ears if you have a better suggestion to demonstrate nationality (which, like it or not, is an important part of sports and something that Wikipedia needs to reflect). GiantSnowman 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused. I already gave a suggestion. Text. Linked to somewhere with further info, if desired. In a table, if appropriate. Grouped/sorted with headings, if practical, to avoid repetition. Each case would, I'm sure, be slightly different, and there would be various "best ways", but the encyclopedia presents lots of lists etc., like this where icons don't apply. I get that you don't prefer it, but I really don't think you'd need me to show you how - and, because you don't prefer it, we'd never agree what was "better" anyway :). Begoon talk 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, how is writing out full, long names 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' or 'Democratic Republic of the Congo' better (i.e. more useful/accessible) for those who use tablets/phones when it takes up half the screen? GiantSnowman 13:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No offence, but I answered that above, and this is getting circular. The only thing I'll say is that there really isn't the enormous difference between: CountryName and CNM [Flag] that you're implying, generally, space-wise, even in the particular edge cases you selected. I respect your opinion. I understand why you have it, even. I differ, and I've done my best to explain my opinion. We're not going to agree, and that's fine, it's allowed. Begoon talk 13:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As written it allows a wide interpretation and most Wiki Project Guidelines can handle the amount of leeway it gives us in making articles give readers the best info possible. This is why they are guidelines because no guideline can cover every project's different variables. That's why we have WikiProjects, to cover those issues that work best in a specific project. It certainly doesn't give a license to an editor to make 100's of controversial removals, but again the individual projects can usually handle these editors. One has to remember that a lot of unnoticed MOS has slipped in through the years... edits to the "guideline" with no discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Having read some of these responses it is clear we need some wording in there so that the use of flags is not outlawed. It makes for rather scary reading. Logical points and arguments have been put forward and the only response has been to entirely ignore the point/s and to reply "Well I don't like the use of flags".--EchetusXe 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any dilution of our carefully thought out advice not to plaster articles with flags. Flags used as they are in the exemplar article convey no information that could not be carried by text, encourage nationalism and related edit wars, add to server load for no benefit, and discriminate against the disabled. Why we would want our articles to look like Top Trumps cards is beyond me. --John (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (as a compromise although I don't even think the identifier is needed). Some of the arguments being used above are ludicrous - particularly the top trumps one. The issue of accessibility keeps getting bandied about - no one seems capable of explaining why they feel that flag icons are inaccessible. (Clue - they aren't.) Nationality is an important identifier in many sports, particularly football. Flags are a universal code for identifying nations and nationality - it's what they were inveted for (in the real world - they weren't an invention of Wikiepedia editors which some people seem to fail to understand.) As I pointed out in the original discussion - if people don't immediately recognise a flag they could investigate it via wikipedia and expand their knowledge so that next time they see it they do recognise it. Isn't that what Wikipedia is meant to be about - expanding knowledge? Or have we forgotten that in some desire to hide information from people in case they don't understand it? Would you expand that logic to removing all words that people might not immediately recognise? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; John puts it better than I ever could, but I would add that flags in sporting tables and lists are a particular problem because they turn innocuous sporting information (ie. which person is on what team) into petty nationalist box-ticking, and they pose further problems in terms of accuracy and neutrality. For instance, lots of notable sportspeople (notable in the sense that they passed a wikiproject's sport-specific notability guideline, hence somebody created a hundred stubs by rote from a list) don't have a reliably-sourced nationality, in which case the flag is just an assumption; and lots have a more complex nationality, leading to misleading flagicons or even the invention of completely new fictional flags to represent people who don't fit in the neat pigeonholes required by a wikiproject's assumption that everybody must have one (only one) little flag picture next to their name. Consequently, the templates which implement these bad assumptions, such as {{Football squad player}}, are inherently incompatible with the manual of style, and encourage WP:V or WP:NPOV failures. The solution is to fix or delete those templates, rather than to relax the encyclopædia's core principles until they finally fit round a wikiproject's bad decisions. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, these are not "bad decisions" - they have been in place for years because they reflect the realities of the sport. Just because y'all don't understand that is not our problem. GiantSnowman 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:WORDPRECEDENT states "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself" - I would say that already applies to football/soccer articles, where many countries have limits on foreign players, and where nationality in the sport is frequently discussed. GiantSnowman 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Where has this idea that flags are inaccessible come from anyway? If you don't know the flag of Burundi, that's your problem, not the encyclopaedia's. Chances are, if you don't know the flag, you've probably never heard of the country either, which rather laughs in the face of the idea that the flag itself is the thing that is inaccessible, especially when (as we've stated several times over the course of this discussion) the {{flagicon}} template links to the country's article anyway. – PeeJay 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No, not knowing a flag is not always the user's fault. Going off the assumption that the average reader is English-literate and has some high-school education, knowing the flag associated with all 200+ countries is not something taught in average school. Using graphics also harms those with visual imparity/blindness. Further, when such pages are printed, they don't have the ability to mouse-over or click on the link to find out the country. As such, the icons are inaccessible. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You seem not to understand what online accessibility means. Not knowing what flag represents which nation is not an accessibility issue - what you are talking about is a desire to dumb down content to the lowest common denominator. Flags were specifically created to allow people to recognise nation or ownership without the need for text (back in the day when they were primarily bits of cloth that flapped in the wind when most people couldn't read). Just because some people won't recognise all of them off the bat is not a reason for not showing them and does not make them inaccessible. The icons in question are not an issue for visually impared, they carry alt tags and provide direct links to explanatory information - anyone needing a screen reader, supportive browser technology or with images disabled is not hindered in understanding what information they convey. A web page is just that - a web page, there is no compunction to design it to work exactly the same when printed out. No links will work when printed out - so how would someone click on one to find out more information - so by your logic that would make them inaccessible? Accessibility does not require online content to be stripped of all visual elements, nor to be dumbed down to the lowest common deonominator. Accessibility is about not preventing users from accessing information if they require supportive technology, it does not require that the user experience should be exactly the same for everyone. So to conclude - the flag icons in question are not inacessible therefore that cannot be used as an argument against their use. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Accessiiblity is about serving to the lowest common denominator, and making sure all readers have about the same minimal experience that servers the encyclopedic need. And so yes, being very well aware that the average reader (which we do assume is versed in English and has basic school) is not going to be able to connect flag to country, is something that falls within accessibility when an alternate presentation that removes that barrier (the use of the country names straight up) is available. Accessibility is about making sure the way we present content is not preventative for any possible reader. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No - I'm afraid you are wrong - accessibility is about making sure that users are not prevented from accessing information by the design or build of your page. There is no compunction to provide an identical experience for all users. People's understanding of what information is provided is most certainly not an accessibility issue. Are you suggesting that only information that everyone immediately understands and recognises is accessible? So have most people heard of Aruba and would immediately recognise what and where it is? If not then it fails your accessibility test and all mentions of it should be removed form Wikipedia immediately? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not at all what I'm saying, because we're not saying to get rid of the country indication at all, just to not use the flags with have a lot less universal accessibility than the standard English names of the country. When there are two ways to present the same information we always stick with the more accessible one. On the other hand there's only one way to say the name "Aruba" and thus there's no other option besides to use that. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But that is what you said - your argument is that if something isn't immediately recognisable then it shouldn't be included. There is no more chance of someone knowing what the word Aruba is than including their flag. Equally you could link to Gallifrey - there are plenty of people that wouldn't know which one was a fictional place. So therefore by your logic we shouldn't use something that some people don't understand, ergo Aruba should not be listed as a nationality because it isn't well known. But that is still a side issue - lack of knowledge on the part of the uer is not an accessibility issue and is irellevant to this discussion and claims that flag icons fail accessibility because of it are erroneous. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If people are against the usage of any sort of country identifier, which was originally the case with the Man United–Arsenal brawl article, why should having the country name/abbreviation matter, either as an accompaniment or a replacement for the flagicons? Surely it is just as superfluous in this case. If you know the flag of the country, good for you. If you don't, it doesn't matter, it's not important apparently. VEOonefive 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Moderate support It's been clear for some time that there is a disparity between this MOS page and real usage on sports articles. The MOS is supposed to reflect traditions and widely-agreed usage, not enforce a point of view. Let's be frank that the people advocating MOSFLAG are mostly different people from those working most actively in the sports topic area. Hence the lack of common ground experienced here, again and again. Furthermore, the oft-cited accessibility issue is not true: the templates for national flags now have inbuilt alt-text for screen readers. We should move on to more relevant discussions.
That said, in my opinion the football project specifically has room for improvement. The three-letter code would be a great improvement – flags with no text (the current usage) are a terrible way to convey information. Excessive linking could be reduced (recent changes to Template:Flagathlete have been productive in this respect). Another simple change would be to remove squad player flags for players that share the same nationality as the club and give a simple section note: Fooian unless stated otherwise. (for anyone interested – here's a previous summary I did of why flags and text are not the same and are actually complementary.) SFB 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not the place to promote undue interest in some detail. Is the article about football or about nationality? Is it a game or a tribal battle? It is clear that LOCALCONSENSUS has caused many sports articles to diverge from MOS, but the solution is to correct the articles, not subvert MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I would be curious to know how the local consensus here trumps numerous "local consensuses" throughout the sports world. A guideline that does not reflect reality is not much of a guideline. Resolute 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As I note immediately above, nationality/flags and icons are used in several sports for several reasons. This consensus support that exists in the field is not something that can or should be trumped by a small cadre of editors trying to create a private consensus on this talk page. The truth is, a "local consensus" here does not trump the wider community's satisfaction with the current format. Resolute 05:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The choice by the various sports projects to use flag icons is the smaller cadre of editors attempting to avoid what the MOS has stated about normalizing and standardizing WP's presentation for readability and accessibility reasons. To present this page as only having local consensus is patent nonsense. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That isn't remotely true, there are hundreds of sports editors that do this. There are less than 10 regulars on this page. The MOS (and all guidelines for that matter) are supposed to describe practice, not prescribe practice. Thus if it is being done on hundreds if not thousands of page then clearly practice is that they are used for this. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The MOS is a global guideline applying to all projects and editors. Just because there's only 10 regular editors presently doesn't invalidate that. By definition, the editors involved in sports articles are a subset of the global consensus and thus represent the local consensus, even if the number of active participants may outweigh those on this page. One has to remember that this is why we don't using voting or democratic methods to resolve disputes. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
          • You are right. It is a guideline. And guidelines by definition are supposed to reflect what the majority of editors are doing. If the majority of editors are using flag icons then the guideline is supposed to reflect that. That is the whole purpose of the MOS. It is the entire reason we don't use voting for creation of the MOS, we use practice. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Again, no. Nothing about our guidelines or policies involve numbers of editors doing a thing - if that were the case, half our policies would be immediately invalidated. And when practice is done by the rest of the WP save for one field, even if that field is numerically larger than the rest, we still go by what the rest of the fields practice, not what one field does. The area of sports get no special exemptions from our policies and guidelines just because they may have the largest subset of articles and editors on WP. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, the entire MOS's purpose is to describe the the practices of the wiki. If the MOS doesn't match what is common practice on the wiki it should be fixed to do so. I am not talking about numbers, I am talking about practice. That is the whole point of the MOS. It describes the common practice of its editors in regards to style. I am not suggesting that any group gets a special exemption. I am however, saying that the MOS is supposed to reflect actual practice, not create practice. "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices ... guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" from WP:GUIDELINE. If most users are following one standard and the MOS describes another then the MOS is supposed to be fixed to reflect that style used on the wiki is the one used in actual practice. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
                • And the point is that other fields outside of sports do not use flag icons to any extent like this, and this MOS presently reflects that practice that is used most across all fields. Sports - just 1 field out of many on WP - do a vastly different practice that others, and irregardless of numbers, is out of line with the MOS, and the MOS is not going to conform to just what one field does. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • It already does, the whole MOS has examples throughout it where certain subject matters handle things differently then others. Heck just focusing on MOS/ICON itself you can see many cases where it describes situations where flags are ok. How is this one any different than any of the other situations where a subject is handled differently. Other than your hate for sports which I have seen you display in other discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • No, not really. The way MOS/ICON is laid out is saying "here's when flag icons are appropriate and inappropriate in a broad sense", and then proceeds to say "this translates into using flags like (examples) in these specific areas", including sports. They are not exemptions but clarifications specific to said fields. I know some of these were to reel in cases of excessive flag use on non-political articles to bring them into the standard practice. What is being asked for here is an exemption from the global practice which isn't going to happen until you can change the consensus on global practice. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
                      • And that is exactly what this is seeking to explain. This would be explaining in these specific areas that the broad sense in sporting articles translates into this. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
                        • No, the requested addition is beyond the scope that flag icons are targeted to be used for. The use request for indiciating the nationality of those on club rosters/squad lists of an otherwise national/regional team violates the idea that flag icons should only be used for representative nationality, and not personal nationality. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly - Not a fan of the flags, but I do recognise that it is the norm for sports related websites, magazines etc in the real world - cant ignore a format that our readers expect to see (like infoboxes lol). That said a recent edit war over at List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks brings to my attention the amount of over-linking.... to me is a problem. We should fix Template:Flag to rewrite the code so that the country link only appeared as a link the fist time seen as per our over-linking rules. Also the name of the country should always appear... not just a flag... for accessibility reasons as not all use a mouse to derive serviceable info from Wikipedia. - Moxy (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with John's assessment and bobrayner's viewpoint as well; nothing is gained by changing the guideline in this manner, but the negatives in changing the wording are plenty. John worded it better than I could. I also disagree with Resolute's assessment that this is some small "private" page that can be ignored when consensus isn't agreeable; this is the talk page for the relevant information, there is no more appropriate place for this discussion to take place, and it is hardly "private", especially when there is no wider community discussion on this topic that I could find (the same few editors giving the same opinions on numerous talk pages is not a "wider community" as per Wikipedia policy). - Aoidh (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use words! If nationality is so important use words so everyone can access and understand the information Gnevin (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Moxy's rationale that Wikipedia should reflect the common practice across the world. Such as the use of flags (and three letter codes) for al the folders in this past weekend's Masters tournament. This is common and expected. Which is exactly why it's already done in thousands of sorts articles that have been edited by hundreds of editors over the now decade-plus history of Wikipedia. That tells me there is already widespread consensus for this, and the guideline should reflect that consensus and practice. Otherwise it's a case of althe tail wagging the dog. oknazevad (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • We're required to reflect content from other sources, but as a global encyclopedia, our style options do not. It is clear in many sports that identifying nationality is important, so no one is saying we drop this. But unlike sports media, where they have an idea that most readers which will routinely see these flags and connect them quickly, we cannot make that assumption at all, and thus the flag icons serve as clutter in most cases where the nationality is mentioned but not critical to the competition (Eg: flag okays are important in Olympics events since we are talking about country competitors here, but far less an issue on something like the Masters where). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As oknazevad mentions it already happens frequently in sports writing. And is used extensively on hundreds if not thousands of pages on the wiki already. People always forget the MOS (and guidelines in general) describe practice, they don't prescribe it. Since it is clearly already being done extensively throughout the wiki and as for over a decade then the MOS should reflect that. Clearly there is widespread consensus to do so or it wouldn't be out there on so many pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that this already happens in many thousands of articles. However, that doesn't make it a good thing; no competent editor would propose that WP:V can be ignored simply because we have 200,000 articles without sources, and no competent editor would propose that vandalism is acceptable because it's so frequent.
  • Apart from the accessibility concerns, systematic use of these flags often fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Those policies are not some transient local agreement which may be overruled by a handful of editors on some wikiproject which likes to put a little flagicon next to every person's name. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that its never been proven that the flags are accessibility issues. And that some might be NPOV or V issues can be said about all text on the wiki. Should we not have any text on the wiki then because some of it can be NPOV? Secondly NPOV and V are policies, not guidelines. Policies do prescribe what to do. That is one of the main differences between policies and guidelines. You talk like its a single wikiproject that likes to put flagicons next to every person's name. But it isn't, I don't think I would be going too far out on a limb to say that its probably close to the majority of editors on the wiki that do. Certainly almost every sports wikiproject does. Guidelines describe practice, they don't prescribe practice. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course flags present accessibility issues. Some of those templates have only flag icons, not names--if you don't know the flag, or you're color blind, or you work on a mobile device or a netbook, then you're SOL. If there's a three-letter code you can guess at what country is meant; good luck. Those are valid accessibility issues--see, for instance, WP:COLOR, and note that there is no requirement that a country's flag is accessible for the colorblind; ergo, it is very possible that some country's flag is not accessible for the colorblind. If these nationalities are important (they're not), then use words. Or, spot the flag in this infobox and try to recognize it--if you suffer from [Tritanopia]] you probably just see a square. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That argues for the addition of words/acronym but it does not argue for the removal of the flag. Having the flag there doesn't present the accessibility issue, its the not having the words there in addition that is the accessibility issue, which even then isn't usually an issue because you mouse over the flag and the country name appears. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If a visually impared reader can't see/read it (with software help), it is an accessibility issue. If it involves online functionality that a printed version would not have, its an accessibility issue. ---MASEM (t) 18:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which again argues that you need to have the words with the flag, but doesn't mean the flag itself is an accessibility issue. So by all means put in the wording that you need to include the word, but having the flag there isn't an accessibility issue any more than any other image on a page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which duplicates information and adds extra time to download the page if there's tons of these flag symbols. It's fine when the nationality of the player is critical on the outcome of the event, like Olympic events, but the nationality of a player on a team or the like, the flag is purely decorative since there's no strong need to show that nationality. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A single word with a flag is not adding any extra time to a page load that is perceptible to anyone. Clearly you don't follow sports at all because nationality is a hugely important aspect to the people who read sports articles. It is a very major piece of information to know the make up of a given team nationality wise. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is not a single flag though. There is more than one flag on the exemplar article. I didn't count; what was it, about thirty-something? All of which were Argentinian except two. Of course it adds to download time, and of course it is an access issue as well as an aesthetic and a management nightmare. In return we gain.... er.... nothing at all? Why are we even having this conversation? --John (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In your particular example, other than the 2 which weren't Argentinian, because they were all the same flag they would only be loaded once because they are the same file. Thus would actually be the equivalent of a single flag download. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not my example, GiantSnowman's. Sounds like 3 image files total, resulting in slower download time, no additional information, a harder time for the blind or anyone trying to work off a printed copy, with the added possibility of nationalist edit wars. It's not leaping out at me as a great proposal, sorry. --John (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Masem - Absolute nonsense. The flag icons in question are perfectly usable by a screen reader as they include alt text so visually impared users can access them in that manner. Any online functionality that can't be replicated exactly when printed out is an accessibility issue? Like the whole internet then? That is not, and has never been, a requirement of accessibility. The icons are perfectly accessible as they are. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - People seem to be complaining that flags aren't accessible because they can't be interpreted by screenreaders; isn't that what ALT text is for? If the screenreader comes across a flag, shouldn't it just read out the name of the country instead? – PeeJay 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes as far as I remember screen readers read out the ALT text. I recall someone in a previous discussion who was known to use a screen reader verifying it but I can't for the life of me remember where. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes - that is correct PeeJay - alt text is short for 'alternative text' designed to be displayed if an image is not visible, displayed on hover or read by screen readers. As I keep saying, the icons in question have alt text therefore meet that requirement for accessibility.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Kindly point out how I get that functionality on my iPhone 3 which, incomprehensibly, does not seem to have come with a mouse. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't speak for an iPhone but on an Android you touch the flag and the ALT text pops up. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have visual impairment that is hindering your use of the browser on iPhone I suggest you use [Voiceover the standard screen reader for your phone. Once you've installed that it will read out the alt texts for you. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some people love adding flags to articles, not just sports figures, but actors, automobiles, volcanoes, birds ... The previous thread was triggered by someone adding hundreds of flags to a language article: If a language is spoken by immigrants in twenty countries, then it needs twenty flags. It can get ridiculous, and really hang up page loading for people with slow connections. As it is currently, a flag *means* something: that the person (or language or whatever) represents the country in an official capacity. That's well defined, and controllable, and not too obtrusive. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Download times of small icons are not an issue - do you really know how long 163 bytes takes to download, even over the slowest dial up browser? And to address a point intimated earlier on - re the Bocca Juniors example, a webpage does not download the same icon or image multiple times, it downloads it once and then uses it multiple times. Also, your browser stores a lot of content on your local machine so once you've viewed one wikipedia page with a flag icon it will most likely keep a copy of it available and is unlikely to try and download a new version for months. Download speeds is a spurious reason to claim that graphics of this nature should not be used. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Download times for multiple small icons are an issue; anecdotally I have noticed pages taking longer to load when they are festooned with the Top Trumps decorations. User:Bladeboy1889, is your confident statement based on anything or are you just saying that? It does not accord with my experience and I suspect that readers in poor countries with old computers and slow connections may not thank us for the decorations but may be happier with a faster download, not to mention the visually impaired, the colour blind, and those who are not interested in flags, all of whom will be irritated with your proposal. In return for this irritation, we gain.... nothing at all that I can see. --John (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's based on an understanding of the impact of download speed against the size of images and an understanding of how websites, browsers and the internet works. Yes - more data to download will always take longer that's a given, but when the difference is percentages of a second then it is irellevant. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The time difference is due to the parsing of templates, not the file sizes of the flags. While the flag image will be downloaded once, each duplicate template will parsed separately. An improvement in the coding of parsing (i.e. caching the input and coresponding results of previously parsed templates) would improve this. This is a template issue that should really have no bearing here – conversion templates, navboxes and infoboxes are far more intensive. SFB 15:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment The debate above seems to have split off into multiple strands - whether icons are inaccessible and whether nationality is relevant for squad lists in sporting articles - and it is getting difficult to follow. These are two very different issues and to help any move towards consensus it might be useful to separate the two out somehow. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very sensible comment. The issue of whether nationality should be stated at all, and the issue of how it is presented do seem to be getting mangled into one, here. Begoon talk 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The idea that MOS is descriptive not prescriptive is nonsense. The entire purpose of a manual of style is to be prescriptive. The idea that MOS:ICONS is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a bad misreading of LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Usage of something by sports wikiprojects just because they like and insist on it, despite years of site-wide consensus-building by Wikipedias from all walks of wiki-life here, is the LOCALCONSENSUS problem. "This particular niche [here, sports] does it a lot" is not evidence that a style guideline needs to change when the thing being done is broadly seen as problematic by everyone but its fans. That's why style guides are written in the first place. It means that the "WTF is all this flag icon decoration?" negative perceptions are coming from something real, not a hypothetical issue. "RS use flags" is a WP:NOT failure of an argument. TV shows and the like use them for "visual soundbyte" reasons; WP does not have only a second to get something across before its screen suddenly changes on our readers. This is actually another version of the WP:Specialist style fallacy: "Because some sources useful to us for sports facts also happen to do something stylistic sometimes, we're going to try to push that style as a requirement on Wikipedia." Doesn't work that way. Finally, even if squad-members' actual [citizenship] nationalities are important in some article context, we don't need to present this information with cutesy colorful icons that only vexillologists with really great eyesight can identify.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm constantly baffled by those who oppose basically on the misconception that our readers are stupid and have no knowledge whatsoever of flags. By that logic, should we get rid of any big or difficult words and turn ourselves into Simple Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 11:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Who opposed on the basis that "our readers are stupid and have no knowledge whatsoever of flags"? I agree that would be a silly thing to do, and it would baffle me too, if I could find it. Begoon talk 12:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed - SMcCandlish stated that "only vexillologists with really great eyesight can identify [flags]", clearly implying that (in their opinion) our 'Regular Joe' readers cannot. GiantSnowman 12:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok... I don't read it that way. I read it as saying that it's unlikely that the average reader will recognise a majority of the 200+ flags of the world presented as tiny icons better than they would understand the country name. I agree with that. Sure, it uses hyperbole. That tends to not help, I agree. We should probably all avoid it. Begoon talk 12:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So because some flags are obscure all flags must be removed? It's also unlikely that the average reader (heck, even long-term editors like me or you!) will understand every word written in an article, should we therefore remove all words as well? GiantSnowman 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum has its place. This isn't it, Giant. I know you're invested in this, but continually taking everything everyone says and pushing it as far out on a limb as you can, then reacting to what you wish they'd said, or something else entirely, isn't working for me. Good luck. I'm done here. Begoon talk 12:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm "continually taking everything everyone says" and twisting it?! I thought you said hyperbole doesn't help in these situations? ;) - but seriously, all I am doing is showing that fact that nobody has (yet) provided an argument against flags for any reason other than "some readers might not recognise them". Cos if that is the argument, it ignores the fact that you can hover over flags to bring up the name of the country; the fact that you can use screen readers which tell you the name of the country; and my initial proposal to combine flags with the country's trigramme or name. GiantSnowman 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"I'm "continually taking everything everyone says" and twisting pushing it?! I thought you said hyperbole doesn't help in these situations?". You got me. Fair point. I do think you're invested in this past your usual reasonable self though. I do that too: on things I really care about I can carry a bludgeon with the best of 'em. Apologies if I offended you in any way. Should still be text, though... (ducks...) :-) Begoon talk 13:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(EC)I don't think he is being absurd. I think that is exactly the argument you and others are making. It is 100% equivalent. Just because someone might not understand what something means doesn't mean we remove it from an encyclopedia. That is sort of the point of an encyclopedia. And part of the beauty of a wiki if they don't understand something usually there is a link they can click (or in this case an image) to learn about it. The argument that we shouldn't have them because someone might not understand them is just as absurd as what he has said. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say he was being absurd. Really, I didn't. It's almost offensive to say I did. At the very least it says you haven't read the discussion, or understood the context. Nobody thinks anyone is being absurd. "Reductio ad absurdum", I feel, is being overused in the discourse, and needlessly increasing the hyperbole. That's all. These discussions would go so much better if people replied to what was said, rather than what they'd prefer to reply to. No offence, but it is what it is. I don't think we should use icons when a textual link would be better, and my reasoning is above. That's all. Sheesh. Begoon talk 14:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am extremely interested to hear the input of @Hawkeye7: given this edit and accompanying summary that "MOS::FLAG exempts sports articles." GiantSnowman 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Djsasso. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Needs something added to keeps things clear in this kind of disputes. Representative nation is norm for sports. For example Formula 1, the last thing these teams and drivers represent is some nationality, but TV coverages, websites etc. are full of little flags and national anthems are played & the season article is full of little flags. Should the flags be removed from 2014 Formula One season as it was done in 2013–14 Premier League? As this argument comes from football - nationality is informative there, there are rules for foreign players in football leagues, how many foreign players are allowed in a team etc. because of this foreign players often are biggest talents/stars in the team. Klõps (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Flag icons convey nationalities in lists of players far quicker than their country names would in text. When I don't recognise a flag, I either hover over the icon or click on it to discover which country's flag it is. Afterwards, I tend to recognise that flag. This is an encyclopaedia. We should expect to discover things we don't know. And if we want to learn more, we can. Daicaregos (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is a common misconception/idea that proposed that it's quicker to decode icons than names. This idea has never been backed up on Wiki with a WP:RS. Gnevin (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This was just the first source on google but it seems good and even had references. But it talks about how visuals are processed 60,000 times faster than text. [2] I am sure there are better sources out there as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue that visuals are processed faster, but it does require that the meaning of the visual is understood. A few stripes of color is just going to be a few stripes of color if the person has no idea that the flag is of country X. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the athlete or team isn't officially representing a certain nation, then there is no reason to indicate a nationality, via a flag or otherwise. It's that simple. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – continue to discourage such frivolous use of flagicons; or discourage them more strongly. They are mostly just visual noise; what good does it do to include a visual representation of this one irrelevant player trait? Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with that. The basic argument that those in favor of flag icons are making here is akin to someone saying, "Everyone is running the red-light, so lets change the law that says running the red light is no longer illegal." I'd say, instead of acknowledging the fact that MOS isn't being adhered to, we should crack down on the offenders and the offending articles and make a clear stance that this stuff will no longer be tolerated.--JOJ Hutton 14:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You could also make the argument that its akin to the majority of the population saying a law is bad/unjust and therefore we should change it to make what the population wants. Your particular argument could be viewed as well as "We have always had slavery and so instead of getting rid of it like the majority of the population wants we should just crack down harder on those who try to escape." -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And... that's an argument, is it? Not using flagicons would be like condoning slavery. It's a point of view, I guess, but call me old-fashioned, I'd probably need more than that. Begoon talk 15:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And the point made before is that WP is not democratic, we don't run on numbers but on strength of policy and discussion across all topics. And remember - no one is arguing to eliminate information, but to present it in the lowest common denominator that all would understand, simple text. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Did Djsasso just compare removing flag icons to keeping slaves? WTF? Somehow I think that the two institutions are completely different and that using that analogy is completely off kilter. You can't even come close to comparing the two.--JOJ Hutton 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No he(?) didn't. He used an analogy (an admittedly emotive one) to highlight the flaws in the logic that was previously stated. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's funny. We are getting into Godwin's Law territory now with this comparison. Next we'll hear that every time we remove decorative flags from a Wikipedia article, a kitten dies. It's just style folks, it's not that important, it's inevitable that some people will disagree, but we have a fairly strong and fairly mature project consensus against using flags as eye candy the way the proposer of this suggestion wishes to. In the absence of any coherent argument to change our recommendation (actual argument rather than opinion or lame analogy) we can probably close this. -John (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please outline the choherant case for not using flag icons as nationality denoters that doesn't involve WP:IDONTLIKEIT phrase like 'eye candy' or 'top trumps' and doesn't cite incorrect assumptions that they fail accessibility guidelines. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't actually think we do have a mature strong consensus on this. It has been objected to for a number of years and in looking through archives I don't actually see a discussion where any consensus on the situation was created. Most of this guideline was just created by people adding things to it with no discussion. If anything I would say the strong mature consensus would be that we do use them in this fashion, because we have been for over a decade. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see it. Even here it's a 13-12 split, which is probably what you find throughout wikipedia. And each Project deems the icons to have higher or lesser importance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh for crying outloud I didn't compare it to slavery. I used an example of a law that was repealed that most people would be familiar with. I am not saying this situation is even remotely like slavery. And as to Masem's assertion that we go on strength of argument. You are right we do. So far from the side we of removing them we have "I don't like the eye candy" which of course isn't a strong argument. We have "accessability issues" which have been proven to be false. We have "load time will be longer" which is clearly false because a fraction of a second that having a flag on the page causes would never be noticed by a reader even on the slowest internet connect. And we have "People won't understand them" but we are an encyclopedia and a wiki and people come to us because they don't understand things and can click on links/images to learn about them if they don't understand them. So right now there are no strong arguments for removing them at all, period. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • None of those arguments have been disproven, you just aren't accepting the reasoning that is being given and understood by the rest of the project. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually we have, in the case of accessibility, we showed that it doesn't affect screen readers, and in the case of mobile phones we have shown that there are screen readers and/or ALT text there which also eliminate accessibility issues there. For people who don't understand them, they can click on the flag and it will tell them whose flag it is. So no issue with people not being able to figure out whose flag it is. I could go on.... So far there hasn't been any valid arguments for removing them. Most all of them boil down to I don't like them or to things like accessibility which have been proven false. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You're choosing not to consider the arguments about using the least common denominator - the text names of countries - is the most accessible form for this data for all, which removes any issue with any other point about accessibility. All your other arguments presume more than we assume that our readers have, so that simply can't work. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have said I have no problem with also having the text. I have issue with removing the flags. The most accessible is to have both. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) But writing out the full names of countries is not accessible for those on handheld devices, is it? Flags, with or without Trigrammes, are used at pretty much every international sporting event (both major and minor) I can think of, regardless of the 'international representation' some editors keep on jabbering on about. GiantSnowman 17:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's nice that sporting alamancs and the like use that. We're an encyclopedia and have different standards, which every field is expected to conform too; just because a standard work for a field may chose an approach, our MOS will override that for purposes of maximum standardization and accessability. Full names of countries are not inaccessible on mobile devices at all. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Who said almanac? I never mentioned an almanac. I'm talking about actual sporting competitions! Full names of countries might not be inaccessible (though they are certainly less accessible) - but then flags aren't inaccessible either, are they? GiantSnowman 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Almanac, newspapers, or whatever way that sporting events are routinely covered, and use flag icons - none of those sources are the same as an encyclopedia so what format they use does not apply to the format we've chosen to present the encyclopedia with. And again, flag icons are inaccessible due to be added download time and a non-obvious connection for all English readers to the country name. The name of the country is clear and fully accessible. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So we shouldn't reflect what reliable sources say about events? Hmm, that's certainly an interesting opinion...furthermore, as has already been stated, the "added download time" is negligible and is not a reason to get rid of something (by that logic we should get rid of all picture as well? Media files? etc.) and I don't actually understand why you mean when you talk about the "non-obvious connection for all English readers to the country name", please can you clarify? GiantSnowman 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not talking content, we're talking presentation. The fact these sources routine report nationality as part of their content means we should do that too. That's not an issue - no one is saying to not mention the nationality of players on rosters. But they've opted to present it via flags, which doesn't work for us considering the broader goals we have for this work and that we tend towards prose over imagery and avoid decorative elements. The "non-obvious connection" is the fact that we cannot assume readers see a flag and can identify the country it belongs to. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a fine line between content and presentation in this modern age of ours; if presentation is not acceptable for you then, again, why do we have pictures? Media files? Infoboxes? Block quotes? etc. No we cannot assume that a reader will know this flag relates to that country - but we equally cannot assume that they don't know that. GiantSnowman 18:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a fine line between content and presentation. Pictures and media files are examples of the former. We are primarily talking about the latter in this discussion. Here is an example edit where I've edited a heading in line with WP:MOSHEAD. I must have made thousands of such edits in my time here. Our Wikipedia style is to use sentence case, even in section headings. This proposal is a bit like if someone from the music project was to propose that music articles should capitalise headings, because thousands of music articles do (probably still true) and because NME formats their articles like this. We probably wouldn't change the MoS to accommodate them. --John (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this weak encyclopedia/almanac argument really being trotted out again? Wikipedia is a cross between the two - it contains current up-to-the moment information that encyclopedias do not - for instance the current squad of teams, which is a feature of almanacs. Arguing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an almanac and ergo cannot use flags is simply nonsense. Number 57 18:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there is a strong distinction between content and presentation even moreso in the digital age. I have not said images can never be content, but it does depend on context. For example, a national flag used on a page about that nation is clearly content because we're telling the reader what the flag looks like, there's no other way to provide that visual information. On the other hand, to use the national flag over or alongside text to represent the country on a biography or sports team roster page is a matter of presentation, the content being the indication of nationality. And we assume the worst - aka the least common denominator - when it comes to guessing what the reader knows or doesn't know. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To Djsasso's point, I'm not seeing anyone say to remove nationality altogether, I'm seeing suggestions that like on Boca Juniors where 90% of the roster is from one country to simple add text to say "All players are from X unless otherwise indicated". --MASEM (t) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support following media practice and placing those flags. I also support my right not to have to see those flags by adding .flagicon {display: none} to my css - Problem solved. Agathoclea (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem if editors do not include the country name along with the flag icon as that completely hides the nationality. Also doesn't work for anon users who can't edit a site CSS page. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The country name is in the flag icon and shows in the flag-hidden mode. Agathoclea (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So basically "turn a blind eye"? Sounds like putting a band aid on a sucking chest wound. "hidden mode" shouldn't be an opt out, but an opt in.--JOJ Hutton 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Why should it? GiantSnowman 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it? --JOJ Hutton 19:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I know you are so what am I? Yes, very good... GiantSnowman 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree if carefully worded to accord with practice. If practice differs from guidelines, and here it generally does, the guidelines are out of date and consensus has basically been established to change them to accord with practice. I don't think sports bio's should have flags in them (any more than politicians, writers, and anyone else) - and they are rarely used there), but in team roster infoboxes where use of flags is common, and does convey quickly the degree to which a team is internationally representative or sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Practice that occurs exclusively within a walled garden (as the sports projects are in this case) is not representative of global practice, instead showing a resilience of the project within the walled garden from adapting to the practice used by the rest of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • From WP:Walled garden, "a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group." Prove to me and the community that there are no links outside the rather immense set of sports articles or withdraw your erroneous assertion and its illogical conclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not talking about the articles of the sports project (which themselves are well-linked), but the editors therein. We had this problem with the UFC events about a year-some ago, and while this is not as closed-minded as that group of editors were, its the same symptoms. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, with caveat I have spend many, many hours maintaining the flag template system, so I have seen dozens (hundreds?) of different ways in which flag icons have been used to good effect and have also been horribly misused. I think I am objective about their usage, so I bristle at the comments of editors being labelled as "flag fetishists", "flag haters" and the like. But to the point, my opinion is that these icons are symbols that can be used effectively in space-limited situations such as large multi-column tables, because many of these symbols have the benefit of being recognizable to a significant portion of the reader population. This is also why they are used in many other media, for the same purpose. But on an encyclopedia, we also need to accomodate people for which some or all of these symbols are not instantly recognizable. The solution is simple: we should mandate that a legend is required for these symbols. We often have table legends for other symbols and abbreviations, and flag icons should be no different. This was the intent behind the Accompany flags with country names clause, so that is the MOS section that needs enforcing. The "legend" can be an explicit one (such as on List of Edmonton Oilers players), or it can be inferred from another table that lists country names in full (e.g. the List of qualified teams section early in the 2010 FIFA World Cup article), or it could be "embedded" by using the three-letter country code next to the flag as GiantSnowman suggests with the {{Football squad player}} template. We simply need to improve articles that use flag icons without county names altogether, in violation of the MOS as currently written. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

    • This is somewhat reasonable as to provide a key so that the issue "what country does this flag represent" is removed, and as a means to save space in a crowded table. Care has to be done to make sure that key is there. But what remains is the fact that using flags to highlight a person's nationality via flags when they are otherwise playing on a specific national team is one of those things called out already. As outlined in this, flags drawn undue visual attention whereas text would be able to do the same, even using 3 letter country codes w/ a key. For things like the FIFA Cup, the flag use is fine since we're talking on the team association, not nationality association, but in something like the Oilers players, that immediately focuses the reader's attention on that flag column and takes away from the rest of the data. There is no reason that the flags can't be replaced with the three letter codes to convey the same information and without too much visual distraction. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • There is also no reason why the flags need to be replaced. And speaking as someone who routinely uses these lists as a reader, no, the flag icons do not take away from the rest of the data. Resolute 00:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • This is going to be subjective, but to me, the first and only thing I see when first looking at the article are the flags. That sets in my mind "are these flags that important", and in discussing the nationality of the players that all represent the same national team, that seems extremely undue weight. It is not "wrong" from any content POV, but it is a presentation issue, highlighting one aspect over all others. I appreciate that this might be a major consideration in sports, but nowhere else is nationality in such a group setting emphasized to this degree. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why this is being brought up here in a narrow context... because sports is so much different than Writers, Mathematicians, Explorers, etc... Fervent nationality to the point of idiocy is more important than most other aspects of a player's career. It's just a fact of life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As soon as you say "Sports is so much different...", you are enforcing the idea that the various sports projects have a walled garden that doesn't have to conform to the rest of WP's MOS and presentation guidelines. There is nothing special about sports that sets them apart from how we otherwise treat persons and their nationality. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • These are guidelines only... not etched in stone as policies are, and as written they aren't being broken. The wiki framers realized that we aren't a cookie cutter one size fits all wikipedia and that's why various projects are around, because projects understand that some things that are very important to Cooking may not be very important to Greek Mythology. So when I say sports are so much different you took it differently than how I meant it as there are many topics that are quite different... my fault there in using a poor choice of wording. Anyway, You have to allow some breathing room when subjects are so different. To try and permanently close off items that an entire topic or industry uses is really not the open wikipedia way of doing things. Also some of this MOS was written and wedged in with no discussion whatsoever, some on this very flag icon issue, so it's consensus is quite suspect. But editors quietly slip in a bit here and a bit there and suddenly certain projects get routed for not being "normal" enough based on these additions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, there is a very good reason why guidelines allow for exceptions, and that is because "one size fits all" rarely actually fits all. Resorting to loaded language like "walled garden" does not advance your position in the slightest. Resolute 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There are reasonable exception to guidelines, yes, but this does not seem like one of those, particularly given this page's reasons why flag icons should be avoided in numerous cases; there's little demonstrated improvement that IAR would suggest is needed over using plain text country names or short abbreviations. The argument being presented "this is how it is commonly done in sports reporting", does not give strong emphasis on why we need to repeat the same presentation approach that is counter to the standard practice. And I've seen and experienced the apparent "walled garden" attitude from the various sports projects before in other areas, this feels like more of the same, that they're so large and massive in terms of editors and article numbers that the encyclopedia should bend to how they do things, not the other way around. We're still an academic work aimed for a global audience, and those priority have to come first. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But standard practice on Wikipedia is to allow these flags - I have been here over 8 years and that is what has always been the case. The MOS should reflect common practice, not the other way around. What's the point in telling a majority of people to do something they don't? GiantSnowman 15:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Outside of sports, these flags are not used for this purpose; they were removed from bio infoboxes and anywhere where nationality was mentioned over the years via consensus. Again, WP is not a democracy - a straight up !vote would surely weight in the favor of sports editors, but there's many many more projects outside of sports that would not use this approach, and that's the practice we go with, what is more common across all fields rather than just by page or editor count. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But we are talking about sports here! That's why I specifically specified that my initial request was for sport articles to be allowed flags in certain contexts, not every bloody type of article on this thing. You need flexibility in your rules. Standard practice across Wikipedia is to have infoboxes on articles - but standard practice also has it that that articles on classical musicians/composers should not. GiantSnowman 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It might sometimes be relevant; after all, sometimes sportspeople compete on national teams. However, most of the time these little flagicons are applied in contexts where it isn't really relevant, or where it's misleading. There are countless thousands of flagicons next to the names of obscure people associated with local sports teams/events, and those flags are usually assumed, based on the event or team, rather than being based on an actual source about that person's nationality. In those cases, we have problems with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, a veritable alphabet soup. bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Flagicons are widely used in reliable media regarding sports. They are (mostly) easily recognizable and have informative value. They have been common practice in Wiki sports articles for many years and MOS should reflect that while at the same time provide clear and sensible guidelines to prevent misuse. Would not oppose the addition of three-letter country codes (e.g. an update of flagathlete) if that is deemed necessary for additional recognition or accessibility.--Wolbo (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel that plastering flag icons over an article detracts from the article more than it adds. I know this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote, but as this is a style issue I feel that is justified. AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I took myself out of this discussion for a while to allow my ire to die down but never the less I find some of the comments being made extremely risible. Consensus doesn't just derive from talk page discussions - if a style becomes widely adopted by editors to the point of preponderance then that is a consensus that that style has become the standard. If that conflicts with existing MOS guidelines then the guidelines need to change to reflect this consensus, not that the consensus should be rolled back to reflect an outdated MOS. Guidelines can develop as wikipedia continues to mature, thinking and consensus on some issues will change over time. National laws don't stay the same in perpetuity, they are amended, tweaked or even repealed as society develops - Wikipedia should be no different. MOS should not be regarded as something that is set in stone, never to be updated. Comments like 'Wikipedia is not a democracy' do the site a great disservice - it implies that in fact it is a dictatorship where elements like MOS can be stipulated by a small number of editors, even if it is out of kilter from the underlying consensus and editing styles of the majority of the sites users. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • At one point, we had readily used flag icons to representation nationality across all topics but that view has changed by nearly every other WP and the MOS updated to reflect that fact due to the understanding of what accessibility problems these created, along with the removal from infoboxes and other places where it used to be used regularly. That's a change that the rest of WP has made, reflected in this MOS, but has not been reflected in sports. The point of a MOS is to unify our presentation for maximum accessibility, so when one area goes against that running consensus that presents a problem. And the MOS development is not a closed process; if people simply don't want to get involved, that's their loss; none of the changes have happened behind closed doors so to call it a dictatorship is far from the truth. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
My point has always been that the 'the understanding of what accessibility problems these created' is actually a misunderstanding of what accessibility means and what is required to make something accessible, which I have explained repeatedly during this discussion. The blanket claim that flags are inherently inaccessible is, and always has been, incorrect and I'd like to see the MOS changed to reflect reality. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support MOS in its current state does not reflect either current practice or the majority view re flags especially in a sport related articles. Consensus on this page is fairly limited compared to overall wiki project uses and consensus, however GS and other users sum up better than I will attempt to.Blethering Scot 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per John, Gnevin, Psychonaut, Dicklyon. Flags are so abused in sport articles it's beyond a joke. They are used as a broad crude tool to portray information that really should be expressed in a clearer more subtle way. Often a flag is just propped next to a player's name in a squad list (mainly in association football, but also rugby union). It's not just done for those that have played internationally, but non-internationals as well, and frequently is just used to indicate place of birth rather than nationality. To make it worse there is rarely a reference to back up the choice of flag. Stick to the MoS as is; it's not being followed at the moment, but it should be. -- Shudde talk 02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support original proposal by GiantSnowman. I'm coming into this following a notice I've seen at WT:CRIC as flagicons are widely (and, sometimes, irresponsibly) used in cricket articles. I believe flagicons are useful per se in team rosters but I think we should aim to reduce the necessity for readers to rely on mouseover. I see flagicons not as decorations but as graphics, and as such they are used to convey information in a different format to break up text and narrative. Their purpose in this respect is similar to those of a table or an image.

Use of the three-letter acronym per the Boca Juniors example makes complete WP:COMMONSENSE which should always be the overriding criterion in making decisions about how best to help the readers. I do not agree at all with the contention by User:John that "the example illustrates how useless flags are in this sort of case (because) there are only two flags that are other than Argentinian". He is missing the point. A reader may well be aware that the majority of Boca players are Argentinian but he has heard that a couple of them come from neighbouring countries and he quickly wants to check which ones. He can see at a glance who the Uruguayan and Paraguayan players are (though, incidentally, neither are there any more as one was transferred and the other is out on loan!). In cricket rosters, the same thing applies as every first-class county team includes a small number of overseas players and the flagicons immediately highlight them. However, like John, I would not recognise the Paraguayan flag immediately and so I would like to see an additional country identifier. What better than the standard three-letter acronym which is in global usage by IT systems? I would certainly like to see the Boca Juniors precedent followed in cricket rosters.

There is the additional point that in top-class team sports which are played internationally, like cricket and football, there are eligibility rules laid down by bodies like the ICC and FIFA, the latter using the FIFA eligibility rules. It is important, therefore, to ensure that rosters do make clear which players are not home-based and I certainly prefer a graphic representation of this information to a text-only one. --Jack | talk page 06:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point: that nationality is relevant for teams when rules apply limits based on player nationality. The same logic applies on the qualification section of the 2012–13 UEFA Champions League, where nationality is a contributory factor to a club's participation. SFB 08:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The use of three-letter acronyms would look straightforward at first glance, but would you easily recognize such acronyms as SCG or HRV? Tvx1 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily (HRV is Croatia, I don't know what SCG is without Googling) but 'difficult' trigrammes are in a minority, and when combined with the flag are easier to guess. GiantSnowman 10:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. With the few that are difficult, the mouseover is a fallback. By the way, SCG is obsolete now though it would still have historical usage. Jack | talk page 11:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal details for sports

The above discussion has probably reached its productive end point. It's patently clear that a review of flag usage on sports articles is required. The reality is that the main guideline here has been so far away from sports editors style that it has had little to no weight on that topic area. As a result, some bad practice has arisen. We should start with addressing the basic things that (I think) editors broadly agree on but are not always reflected in present usage in sports:

Proposed basic ideas for sports

  1. All of the current flags for sportspeople section
  2. Flagicons should not be used in headers
  3. Flagicons should not be used in the middle of prose
  4. Flagicons should not be used on their own without text
  5. Flagicons should show the full country name when that country is being directly referred to (e.g. Spain  2–1  Brazil)
  6. Flagicons should show the relevant three-letter-country-code text when space is at a premium (e.g. on a table,  Michael Phelps (USA))
  7. Flagicons should not be used if the sports topic is entirely national in nature (except for international guests?) (e.g. USA Track and Field Championships)
  8. Flagicons should not be used to denote competition host nations/locations (e.g. List of FIFA World Cup finals = good practice/Rugby World Cup = bad)

Obviously there will be finer details to discuss and build on these, but is there any opposition to these basic ideas for a start? SFB 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

On quick initial review those all seem fair to me. GiantSnowman 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing a consensus above to diverge from the MoS in this one area. --John (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any contradictions with the current manual of style in the proposal—just additional clarifications that address the concerns that have been raised by those who believe flag icons are being overused, or used without appropriate accompanying text. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As usual though, there will always be relevant exceptions. The infobox for hockey players uses flagicons with national team participation - though of course, not with birth and death locations. Resolute 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I support removing all flags from infoboxes - unless the ice hockey editors can provide a solid argument as to why their articles should be exempt? GiantSnowman 08:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a contradiction or two here. Nothing in MOS that bans the usage of the flagicon term, only that on first usage it should be labeled in some way. When making international tennis 64 player brackets there pretty much isn't room for mote than the icon. Perhaps a flag key template at the page bottom would help in these matters. There is also nothing banned in using them in infoboxes to indicated the flag a players participates at international events, as we would do per Andy Murray. I like the flagathlete solution in tables when at all possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." So the flag use in Andy Murray is an example of the problem here. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Which does not ban their use as a policy would. It's generally done. In sports articles they take on far more weight than it would for an article on carpenters. Plus that sentence was added by an individual with no input from other projects at all. It was slipped in. I brought it up when noticed and was ignored. And Murray is no problem at all. It works very well and it's the basic foundation of tennis articles that have been FA status. The problem is the editors that like to tinker with MOS sometimes don't take into consideration the countless articles that are done in a style that they don't happen to like. Type type snip snip, get a few to agree with you (or even none) and MOS is changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Given how much discussion there was I see in the archives in the general case of avoiding flag icons in infoboxes, this was not added at random, in addition to the progressive removal from other infoboxes dealing with people. So it reflects global consensus. And the arguments to keep these in sports infoboxes are based on how "important" it is to sports. However, we nee to consider how the articles are evaluated from a non-sports person who may have to research that topic. And there I'm pretty confident that the inclusion of the flag alongside the name of the country they represent has no importance or meaning to them, and as described, overly distracting because your eye is drawn right there. (There are other issues with that infobox in terms of length, but that's a different discussion). Maybe for those interested in these sports they are trained to scan to look for these icons, but the bulk of the readers are not here for sports but other topics and that's not an issue. This is the issue here is that those that edit sports are thinking all their readers are well-read sports readers, but that's not how we operate. The MOS is designed to make sure all pages are equally usable and accessible by all readers, and if a feature that might be useful to one subset can detract or harm another subset, we don't use that. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the people researching these sports articles will certainly know about the sport. Some will not. So we make the article less helpful because some will not understand the importance of something? They are not distracting at all, that is not global consensus but slipped in. You are really grasping if you think that adding flag icons makes these articles less usable and less accessible to our readers. We don't want our readers dumbed down when we can give them more important info. What can make these articles less usable is some of the bloated code that many like to use and add. And I'm sorry, but to say that flags in sports articles actually "detract or harm" our readers is a ridiculous statement; one that makes me doubt your ability to be objective about this subject. It's one thing to say you don't like them or they add unneeded info or don't conform to non-sports articles... but harm our researchers? Come on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please can we just focus on discussing the above details in this section? As with any negotiation, we should start with areas of common ground. This will start a framework for good sports practice, which will help us eventually understand what the key sticking points are and why. If you think the MOS should be followed as is, then that's fine – please weigh in towards the end when the proposal is refined rather than disrupt the process of building a proposal at the very start. SFB 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"The reality is that the main guideline here has been so far away from sports editors style that it has had little to no weight on that topic area." It is absolutely inane to have a wiki-wide guideline crafted around a Wikiproject or set of Wikiprojects; that is not how consensus works. Calling out clarifications that fit within a guideline - sure (that's what NSPORTS tries to do), and how this guideline is set up already. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This is true, the main guideline as some interpret it, doesn't follow what some projects deem absolutely necessary. That is why it's a guideline... it simply cannot cover everything when there are almost infinite topics. Even with projects such as tennis, the tennis project guidelines can't cover everything, so we work around and make new decisions between basic guidelines and what editors want and happen to use all the time. We have to be a bit flexible. But we don't want each player page to look the same as if they are all model T Fords. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposal above seems to be in agreement, then: it is adding clarifications that fit within the existing guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The style that exists within the sport-related articles has developed over a period of many years through the work of hundreds of editors. "Inane" would be the expectation that any discussion held here among a small number of people - many of whom do not edit within the relevant scope - will be viewed as having any real-world validity if the dozens of projects that employ this separate style are not invited to participate. Resolute 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Resolute: - I did notify WP:FOOTBALL and WP:TENNIS, only because those two sports have been specifically mentioned in the above discussion. I don't have the time to notify every WikiProject individually - could a bot do so? GiantSnowman 08:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've notified WP:MOTORSPORT and WP:FORMULA1. DH85868993 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've notified all the major, relevant sports projects of this discussion. This will help us develop a broader discussion. SFB 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Notifying the sports projects but without notifying any other project is effectively canvassing in this context, since it's clear which way the sports projects want this. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Now you've been reduced to wikilawyering, Masem? It is common practice to notify the people who edit in areas that you intend to impact. And since this discussion potentially impacts sports articles, you have an obligation to ensure that people editing in these projects have the right to be heard. There is also a curious leap of logic involved in your comment, because if you presume that sports editors all lean the same way, then you are basically admitting that your guideline does not reflect consensus. Resolute 15:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of flag icons that stems from the MOS/global guideline is an issue for all WPians. Hence why the proper notification would have been to RFC-tag this discussion without additional notifications, so that everyone interested would see it. And yes, so far, it's very clear which way the sports projects want to swing this. I'm not saying we shouldn't get the sports projects' input here, but they're not the only voice here. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd disagree that the proposed guidelines should be adopted as a starting position. If the guidelines are to be addressed then we should take the opportunity to be bold and divorce them from erroneous claims that icons are inaccesisble by nature or the spurious logic that less than 100% recognition of 100% of flags by 100% of readers should preclude their usage. I would instead suggest that the basic premise should actually include:
  1. Flag icons are an acceptable visual shorthand to denote nationality or location when such denotion is relevant to the article in which it is included. Nationality or location is not relevant for the majority of pages and use of flags or any other form of nationality denotion should be the exception. However, it is recognised that in certain areas, nationality or location is inherently relevant to the topic, eg many professional sports. In such cases the the acceptable use of flags should be derived from the local MOS of the relevant Wikiprojects.
  2. Flagicons do not always require a textual explanation as standard, and it is acceptable to use them without including associated text. However, icons, like any other graphics or images used on Wikipedia, must comply with accessibility guidelines, by including a relevant alt tag denoting the nation to which the flag belongs, and linking to the Wikipedia page of the relevant nation. The use of {{flagicon}} is strongly recommended as this will automatically include this information.

I'm sure some editors would not agree but it seems suitable to me in view of the inaccurate claims that have been made about accessibility. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Bladeboy, say what you will, but the accessibility issue is part of the MOS rationale. And Masem is absolutely correct: asking for other projects to be involved is hardly wikilawyering, since the issue is the application of the MOS. Surely that should be discussed by those not associated with any sports project, like me.

    As for the absolute silliness of this flagging all over the place, I just ran into 2014 Pirelli World Challenge season. No one in their right mind can claim that those racers represent their countries, which is what the MOS requires. And from "real" races we go to "events", such as here--where even races and car manufacturers are flagged. Lotus, for instance, in 1995, was tagged as British, though at the time (hope I have all this right) it was owned by the Italian Romano Artioli, who had acquired it from the American (or, at the time, multinational?) General Motors, and sold it in 1996 to a Malaysian subsidiary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

I did not say that accessibility shouldn't be part of the rationale - quite the reverse, it is an essential part. What I am suggesting however is that MOS is based on the reality of accessibility requirements, not this myth that flag icons are inherently inaccessible.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The auto racing argument is an interesting one, because it is a good example of where real world usage diverges from this guideline. I will use F1 as an example here: While a driver does not explicitly represent their country, their nationality is nonetheless a prominent part of how they are described - and several major websites use flagicons to denote this. BBC, ESPN, Sportsnet Canada, even Google. If you watch an IndyCar race in North America, the broadcasts plaster flags all over the place to note the nationality of the drivers. The usage is not universal - some sites do not use Flags (TSN in Canada is one, as is F1's official site) - but there remains a valid, legitimate argument for their use in such articles. Resolute 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Or search for "Formula One" in Google.--Wolbo (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
At the end of a Formula One race the winner, second and third place drivers stand on the podium and then the raise their national flags and play the national anthem of the winner. Then they play the national anthem of the winning team. So to claim nationality is irrelevant in Formula One is ridiculous. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag icons in infoboxes

Flag icon usage in infoboxes has been raised as a point of contention. There is support and dissension for what is at WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I think this is a hot topic that demands specific discussion so I have started its own section. My interpretation is:

Accepted usage
  1. Flagicons should not be used in infoboxes to show a player's nationality in a non-sports context
  2. Flagicons should not be used in infoboxes to denote locations
  3. Flagicons should not be used in infoboxes in a non-international context (e.g. Italian flag for a local team in Italy)

Can we start of by checking if there is any disagreement with these three points? SFB 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed usage
  1. Flagicons should not be used in infoboxes to denote international teams (e.g. FIFA World Cup, Scotland national football team, 1966 FIFA World Cup Final)
  2. Flagicons should not be used in infoboxes to denote a player's primary sporting nationality (e.g. Andy Murray, Usain Bolt)

What are the opinions on (a) used flags to denote international teams, and (b) using flags to denote a sportsperson's international achievements? (I'd like to add to the second point that we have nearly 40,000 articles using {{MedalCountry}} for that purpose). SFB 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have a fair question on the team issue: take the Scotland national football team as an example, and contrast this to an individual playing in the Olympics or another international event. The latter is playing to "represent" their home country usually set by some gov't-based/endorsed selection program; this would be a situation where the flag use is clearly reasonable since the political body of the country is involved in the decision. But for something like the Scottish team, is there any gov't endorsement of the selection of the teams (which would mean they are truly "representing" the nation)? Or are we talking about some organization within that country with no government ties that said "we want a national team" and put together the larger program around it? It is a very subtle but important distinction here, as if the political body of the nation has some say in the team or individual's participation, it makes sense that the flag of that nation can be used to represent that (that falls in line with the rest of flag use). But if we're talking just the fact that team or individual happens to originate and consistent of players from that country but without any official endorsement, the use of the country flag implies the wrong meaning to its use. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sports governing bodies recognises national teams, so the positions of the respective national governments are largely irrelevant. Still, there are a small number of non-recognised exceptions (e.g. Catalonia national football team). I think it makes sense that we should use the flag that the team uses (and use no flag if there is not a consistent one). This has direct parallels with flag usage on conflict articles (e.g. World War II). SFB 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What I want to make sure is that we're not using national flags in lieu of a team logo or the like, when the "national" connection/endorsement is not strong. Considering that if you take more regional/national sports lise MLB or American football, these presently would frequently use the team logo in the manner these flag icons are being used now, as a shorthand way to represent a team; however, we are unable to use that approach as most team logos are non-free and would certainly be a major accessibility issue for those in different countries. We shouldn't be using free-content flag icons to do the same, unless it is very clear that the player or team is playing to represent that nation, as opposed to being just from that nation. This is where I think the use of the flag on Andy Murray, for example, is wrong, unless I am misreading how tennis works. He is a UK-ian that plays tennis in international events, but - as I read - he is not playing at these international events representing UK. (I will offer I may be wrong, but trying to read how these tennis tourneys work, its about the individual and less about the country, unlike the Olympics). On the other hand, the use of the flag on Usain Bolt is right in line showing which country he represented. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"UK-ian"? - I think you're looking for 'British'! ;) - Andy Murray represented GB when he plays at the Davis Cup or Olympics, and he represents himself when he plays in regular tournaments - but flags are consistently used by almost all sources for him regardless of who.what he is representing... GiantSnowman 16:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This might be part of the larger problem, that comparing the format of the infoboxes (like between Bolt and Murray) that there's inconsistencies; the tennis infobox puts the player's representing country up high and masks the "nationality" field that it present in the generic athlete box uses. In terms of trying to find a compromise on use, my thinking is that the first "block" of the infobox should follow how {{infobox person}} goes, and then go into the details of the sporting career. In this manner, how the tennis infobox is laid out is "wrong", and the use of the flag icon way up there is not really correct. As you say, if Murray played as a representative of the UK in the Olympics and Davis cups, then when these are mentioned (as in the Bolt infobox) the flag icon makes logical sense with out MOS/FLAGS is already there. But all the way up where nationality should be listed, it's against the MOS's guidance and one of the uses that is at issue. Again, if it was just being used lower to say "representing the United Kingdom" for the Olympics line in the infobox, that would clearly okay. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think most are simply using it as they see day in and day out in the real world. The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) uses that flag very prominently on player bios. It's right there at the Olympics with Phelps, at the International Tennis Association (ITF), the Womens Tennis Association (WTA), etc... Sports editors see the usage in their face on a regular basis so it is natural that Wikipedia would follow suit. Tennis, Auto Racing, etc... are sports fought on the international stage where the crowds root for their nations player on a regular basis. To show it is less important than it truly is doesn't seem like the openness and sourcing of the wikipedia way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
See also the official Wimbledon website.--Wolbo (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
See, I think the issue is understanding that why we've removed the flag icon from most other pages is that besides the other points above (distraction, accessibility, knowledge of flags) that for non-sports articles, it creates an implicit connection or association with the political body of that nation to the topic at hand. Sometimes, this is of course appropriate - like describing World War II actions since that's all about political bodies, but when we are talking things like nationality, that simply isn't there. So, now when talk about sports: if we restrict our view to just sports the icon use is seemingly innoculous and follows the media practice, but when next to the rest of WP, it creates a problem where we've opted to try to avoid this association of flags with nationality and other aspects due to the bias that infers. So on the presumption that the rest of WP has downplayed the use of flags in specific situations because of a WP-wide problem, then the sports areas should respect that. You can still print out the nation instead of the flag, no information is lost, but that removes the bias the flag image created. That said, that's based on the presumption that I stated, which has been argued as a "non-consensus addition" above, which is completely fair to question. This is why this is a larger problem than just the sports fields. If this presumption is not right, then we should instead by having a discussion "Across all WP, should flag icons be used or be avoided for indicating nationality", and then work out the cases in the sports area where flag icons are reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Eloquent that your statement may be, it relies on numerous assumptions that I do not accept. First, don't open your statement with the argument that if someone disagrees with you, it must be because they don't understand. Beyond that, and focusing on the context of usage in the sporting world: No, I do not believe it creates an "implicit connection... with the political body". When people see the flags, they think nationality, not politics. Consequently, I do not accept your argument that the use of a flagicon infers a bias. Unless you think stating a Swedish athlete is Swedish is an example of bias. Next, I do not accept that the use of flagicons is a "wiki-wide problem" in the manner you infer. And consequently to that, I do not accept the argument that "this is a larger problem than just sports fields", or that sports fields necessarily have to follow the exact style of other fields, or vice versa. Wikipedia is an extremely large project, and "one size fits all" does not fit all. Resolute 19:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
But you're not separating the issue from what the sports arena normally does, I'm looking at this from a reader, who is not at all interested in sports but needs to read about an athlete, the same way we approach every page on WP, who may have no idea that flag icons are regularly used in the sports media to report on these. The reason we have removed flag icons from nationalities everywhere else is to avoid confusion. This is why we have a MOS because, when it comes to presentation, there are things that "one size fits all" needs to be in place to assure consistent accessibility and look and feel across the entire work. Our MOS goes against a lot of other common style guidelines out there but we have done that purposely to achieve better use and comprehension of the material, so other fields don't get special exemptions from the MOS here. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think the logic for infobox flag usage is the same for 1966 FIFA World Cup Final and World War II. They both have national polities at the very centre of the topic, with flags being a key part of the topic imagery. I think this should be clarified as an acceptable usage for sports. SFB 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you seem to want to dumb down our readers. You say they are going to be confused because they don't regularly go to the Wimbledon or US Open websites so they won't understand how important National Representation is in sports. Well, they learn by reading, and we hope that they learn the way things work by reading our Wikipedia. Look at the article Oxygen... Once I get down a paragraph or two the technicality goes over my head. I don't want it removed just because I don't personally understand it. That's how I learn. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no dumbing down, there's meeting the lowest common denominator, which is that they will recognize the country name more than the flag icon. No information is being removed by removing the flag icon and replacing it with the name of the country if not present already. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again Masem, I do not accept that the icons cause confusion. Confusion as to what? That a Swedish flag beside a Swedish athlete indicates that they are Swedish? And between you and me, I tend to assume a slightly higher level of intelligence in our readership than you seem to. Resolute 21:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The rest of Wikipedia has determined these to be a problem ("they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many") and hence why they are removed from other infoboxes to indicate nationality. That same problem exists for athletes. On the other hand, when we're talking about an athlete that has played as a representative of that country, as in the case of Bolt, there is make sense and in line with how flags are used in infoboxes elsewhere. I am fine with flags use to replacement the country a player represents when they play in international competitions, but if its just for demonstrating nationality, that's a use deprecated from the rest of WP. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the rest of wikipedia." Check back to 2010 on the talk pages and you'll see discussions about flag icons for sure... but you won't find discussing the addition of ("they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many"). That was thrown in by an individual edit not an RfC. Before that it also said "That said, flag icons are standard in a few infoboxes, notably for some (but not all) types of professional athletes representing a country in international competition. These infoboxes typically mandate the use of IOC country code templates, which display both flag and country name: for example,  Canada renders as Canada." Not every WikiProject (especially sports) notices when 3 people have a discussion at MOS. We only notice when someone uses a bot to remove 1000 items in 2 days that don't mesh with these three people's views. We never get complaints about them at Tennis Project except for a few fickle MOS editors. We do get complaints from readers from time to time about what they'd like to see in an infobox or something they think should be set much lower in an article because of limited interest. We look at those things and try to find the right balance. I just don't see what the big deal is here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Accepted usage"--yes, I agree. "Disputed usage"--I may differ from Masem here: I don't think it's problematic to have a national team flagged, given that there are national sports bodies. Usage should be limited, of course, to such things as tables or brackets. The second item, the Andy Murray flag, there is no justification in the MOS for it. Many of the "Olympics" sub-infoboxes (the ones with medals and such) have a flag and I grudgingly accept that, but not in the infobox with personal details. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the accepted usage. It's what has been done for years and years here. The disputed sentences don't reflect real world usage/importance or wiki sports usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This usage can be confusing, though whether or not a flag icon is used makes no difference. Continuing the example of Andy Murray … Murray is Scottish. He identifies as Scottish. Scotland is his country. His article begins “... Murray is a Scottish professional tennis player …”. And according to MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes are supposed to summarise key features of the page's subject. Yet the infobox says his country is Great Britain. That is confusing. Daicaregos (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Your mixing up ethnicity and nationality. Andy Murray's ethnicity is Scottish, his nationality is British. There's no such nationality as Scottish. Scotland is not an independent nation (well not for the time being it isn't). Having been born in Dunblane, Andy holds a passport from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That makes him British. I do agree that the article lead is somewhat confusing, however. It would be better if it reads "Andy Murray is a British professional tennis player from Scotland...". Tvx1 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I most certainly am not. Perhaps you could consult a reliable English dictionary before arguing about semantics. The OED defines 'nationality' as “A group of persons belonging to a particular nation; a nation; an ethnic or racial group.” 'Nation' is defined as “A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In early use also in pl.: a country.)” Scotland is a nation and a country. Murray belongs to that nation. Ergo Murray's nationality is Scottish. You are confusing nationality with legal citizenship. Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually that is not true everywhere. The US gov't does not deem Scotland as a country. The country is the "United Kingdom" and it is composed of the Administrative divisions of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. So per the US his nationality is British. Per the governing bodies of tennis his nationality is British. Obviously the wording depends on what official book one looks at, but no matter where you look it up Scotland is not on the same par as Germany, Italy, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Taiwan, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be true everywhere, and few countries are on the same par with each other. Vatican City is not on the same par as China, nor is Russia on the same par as Andorra. Yet they are each defined as countries. WP:NPOV says we should represent “fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.” AFAIK, the US Government, nor any of the examples given, say Scotland is not a country. Thousands, possibly millions, of reliable sources define Scotland as a country, including: country leaders: David Cameron, UK, Joyce Banda, Malawi, Alex Salmond, Scotland; Governments: UK Government, Scottish Government, Government agencies: Education Scotland; newspapers & periodicals: Grauniad, Washington Times, The New York Times, The Economist, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Spectator; organisations: National Trust for Scotland, BBC; Rough Guide; almost infinite sports related souces and Stephen Fry. As important, if not more so, per MOS:BIO, is how Murray defines himself: “I am Scottish. I am also British.” Consensus on the tennis infobox is to note how he is registered with the international sports governing body. If 'country' denotes the player's sporting registration, it should be noted as that. Daicaregos (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to bring out your nationalism, and perhaps I phrased that badly. Let me try again. In the US the word "country" denotes what I guess in the UK is called a "Sovereign State." In the US the word "state" is used for Florida or California. That doesn't mean the US looks at Scotland any differently than does Scotland itself... just that the US language is different. But yes... since this is supposed to be an English language Encyclopedia it should try to encompass multiple facets of that language. If it was ITF Country or ITF Nationality or perhaps Tennis Nationality, it would be clearer that this is the nationality he plays tennis under. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is true. We try to be diligent on making sure that player nationality does not get confused with citizenship or states within a nation. His international ITF registered playing nationality is Great Britain. There were many edit wars on the lead sentence over the years and I believe the compromise that was reached was, Great Britain flag in infobox, but the lead would say "is a Scottish professional tennis player." It has worked well as a compromise. 99% of the time there is no issue but Murray is a special case where compromises were made for the sanity of all involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You may be as dilligent as you like, but if the player's 'player nationality' is stated as 'country' in the infobox, readers will be confused. Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a good point... it might be better to change it to say "Nationality" or perhaps "Sports Nationality". Note: I just did a quick minor tweak to the template to put in "Sports nationality" rather than "Country." The template was actually supposed to say "Country represented" instead of just "Country" but I'm guessing the fact the two words are too long and wrap in the infobox made the single word "Country" more attractive. But this is just to show it's an easy fix in case of any kind of confusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I reverted that update as the template clearly states that any significant alteration to the template (incl. field name changes) requires prior discussion and approval via the template talk page. Furthermore, as the field is called "Country represented" it would, if a change is required to avoid confusion, be logical for the label to follow suit (or perhaps "Country representation"). Also in my view there is no such thing as a "Sports Nationality". --Wolbo (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is 'sports nationality', see FIFA eligibility rules. GiantSnowman 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Wolbo, I'm not sure what you would call it then. In international sports Scotland plays under the nationality of Great Britain. We could use "Tennis nationality" or "ITF Nationality." Remember also that per UK nomenclature Scotland is a country so "Country represented" might not be any better than "Country" for those few who might get confused. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not always - see football, rugby, cricket, certain athletics events etc. etc. that all have a separate Scottish national team. GiantSnowman 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Andy Murray is not a good usage: the Davis Cup link is unexpected, the field name does not state this means country in a sports context, and for the majority of subsequently listed achievements he was not representing GB. Instances like Jamie Murray compound the issue – he has also represented Scotland internationally. I think we should only use infobox flags when they directly relate to representing that nation (like the medal record section of Andy Murray) and they cause no confusion around non-international achievements (e.g. Thierry Henry). SFB 08:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Where has Jamie Murray represented Scotland? Not in the Olympics or ITF/ATP international tennis events. He always represents Great Britain as far as I'm aware. Wimbledon states he represents Great Britain as does every other tournament I know of plus his official ITF tennis registration. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games. SFB 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we're dwelling of awfully here. The confusing situation of Andy and Jamie Murray is not by any means caused by the used of flags in any manner on those articles. It's caused by the unique situation of the United Kingdom and its Home Nations. The presence of flags have no effect on that whatsoever. So I can't see how these articles fit into this discussion at all.
On a side note, the football situation is even more confusing as the British Home Nations generally compete independently, but a British National Football Team exists nevertheless and some players have represented two nations at simultaneous points during their careers. Tvx1 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions

This discussion seems to have stalled but needs to come to some sort of conclusion. Unfortunately the discussion forked and two elements were being debated concurrently, namely a) whether flag icons are an acceptable nationality indicator where notable, and b) whether nationality is notable in a large number of professional sports. Taking point a - the arguments from those opposed to the use of icons seem to fall into three distinct themes:

  • Flag icons are inaccessible
  • There is not 100% recognition of flags so they shouldn't be used
  • Flag icons are decoration, cutesy, top trumps, random coloured postage stamps etc.

The first argument is largely based on a misunderstanding of what online accessibility is, how it is achieved and what counts as accessible. The reality is that flag icons, implemented properly, meet all accessibility guidelines. The second argument suggests that if any user doesn't instantly recognise every single flag in the world then no flags should be used and all readers should be assumed to lack knowledge. The third argument is simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT and has no basis in anything other than that. The first and third argument should therefore be discounted. All that leaves is an argument that 100% recognition is required for icon use.

The second thread of the discussion centred around whether nationality is relevant in professional sport. Those suggesting it wasn't (largely but not exclusively drawn from non-sports fans and from editors not actively editing sports related articles) largely suggest that nationality is only relevant at a time when an athlete of team is actively representing a country in national competition. Those in favour of the change argue that for many professional sports nationality is used throughout the sport and media as a defining characteristic and is therefore notable.

There was also the argument put forward that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and even if something is accepted practice and favoured by the bulk of editors, that does not mean MOS should change to reflect this consensus. Rather that the MOS should be defended and agressively enforced by those editors in favour of it.

Currently there is no consensus for the suggested change despite, there appearing to be more editors in favour of the change than those opposing it. More discussion is needed to reach a conclusion. However, there is enough reason to amend the MOS to remove the sentence "Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size." which is misleading and factually incorrect. It should be replaced by something similar to "Flag icons must be correctly implemented, with relevant ALT tags and linking to the country in question, to avoid creating accessibility issues." which is factually correct.

There is also no consensus that the MOS needs to be tightened up, nor for editors to use scripts to unilaterally and aggressively remove flag icons from hundreds sports articles. Such an exercise should be halted and those edits reverted until such a time as there is more widespread consenus and conclusion to the discussion above.

My own opinion is that we should stop trying to hold WP hostage to an MOS based on myths and personal preference. I'm sure others will argue otherwise. I would still like to see a conclusion to enable us to move forward. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable approach is that flag icons may be used only when we are talking about when the player is playing and representing that nation in the event (creating the strong national tie), as you'd have for Olympians. Flags should not be used to simply represent nationality without the explicit aspect of the player playing to represent that nation. Additionally, flag icons should never be used without either the country name or the country code next to it. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
In response to this, I think it is worth noting that some of the editors opposing the use of flags do not appear to understand the relevance of nationality to club squads. Nationality is an important subject in club football for a number of reasons - restrictions on overseas players, the likelihood of losing players to international duty, and the high-profile and never-ending debate over whether there are too many foreign players in whatever country is being talked about (very much in the headlines again recently in England for example). They are an important piece of context for a squad, and the information is valuable. The best suggestion I heard in this debate is to compromise by adding the country trigramme to the template, which should satisfy both camps. However, it appears that compromise is not something that many people are interested in. Number 57 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "it is worth noting that some of the editors opposing the use of flags do not appear to understand the relevance of nationality to club squads" – another fallacy. It's the sort of "xenophobic" comment that says people who know nothing about [topic] ought to stay well away. In reality, it is just those people who, in wanting to contribute, can impart an objective view of a given topic because of their perspective that is independent from the "insiders". -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I support the compromise of augmenting flags with their FIFA trigrammes, as suggested here by Number 57, and object to the total removal of flags for the exact reasons he has listed. Were this a discussion about actors/artists/academics, I could see the reason for removing them as nationality is not a significant factor in those fields (except in exceptional circumstances), but despite various editors above protesting the contrary, sport is a law unto itself with regard to nationality due to the prevalence of national representative competition. Basically, in relevant context, there has to be at least some recognition of sportspeople's nationality, but I have no preference as to whether that is with standalone flags or flags with trigrammes (full country names are out of the question due to the potential differences in length, cf. Iran vs Democratic Republic of the Congo). – PeeJay 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere else are flags used to identify nationality just because they come from that nation, and it does not make sense to make the exception for sports. The reason we avoid flags is to avoid making the nationality that much more a factor than it really is, and hence on roster tables, it should be completely avoided. You can still mention the nationality, we're not saying that information isn't useful, but it is best represented - to avoid all accessibility, size, and bias problems with straight-forward text. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Why use FIFA nationality on a national level? Leagues don't use that when it's relevant. When a player in county A has two passports (country A and B) and plays internationally for country B, he isn't foreign on a national level in country A. Also: In the Netherlands when there were restrictions on the number of foreign players, in the 60's, after 5 years footballers were no longer considered to be foreign. In the early 90's after only 2 years. They didn't even have to have a Dutch passport. Cattivi (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
"In response to this, I think it is worth noting that some of the editors opposing the use of flags do not appear to understand the relevance of nationality to club squads." This doesn't seem documented anywhere, or more to the point, a major point made in such articles. It might be like a "rule of thumb", but then again, this is only by judging a handful of articles and trying follow links about rules like this. Even then, we're not saying you can't mention nationality, the country name or 3-letter code is still completely valid and can be used on these sortable tables to make the same quick assessment about country representation on a team. The point that has been made is that across WP we have made it clear that when one uses a nation's flag, there should be some direct connection to the country's political/nationalistic nature, and not just because something happened inside the bounds of that country. A player playing for a country in the Olmypics - yes, they were selected as one of the country's champions for the event. A player player for a national regular tourney team, not so much. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This argument seems back to front. It would be up to those wishing to promote indiscriminate use of decorative flags to justify their proposal. Failing that (and I do not even slightly see that) the provisions of WP:ICONDECORATION form a robust and project wide consensus against such uses. --John (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You seem not to understand WP:ICONDECORATION - "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." - no one is proposing using flags as decoration. This INCONDECORATION is talking about the use of icons that don't convey additional information (like replacing bullets with smiley faces) - this whole discussion has been about the relevance of using icons specifically to convey nationality which is in no way at odds with ICONDECORATION. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Your ad hominem has been noted. I disagree strongly with what you say and I stand by what I said at 07:41. --John (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It does appear he is right though, ICONDECORATION is not at all talking about this type of situation because as bladeboy mentions, these flags are being used to convey information. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Information which is often spurious and extraneous, and which could equally well be conveyed (where significant) in words. This is right down the middle of ICONDECORATION; the insistence on using the flags is entirely for decoration. --John (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That you don't think its good information doesn't make it no information which is the heart of what ICONDECORATION is trying to prevent. That you seem to think people want them only for decoration purposes, despite the fact many people have put forth arguments that have nothing to do with decoration is just your opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that you like the tiny flags and will argue black is white if necessary to get to keep them. The point is that our existing consensual practice deprecates using them in this way and the onus is on tiny flag fans to convince the rest of us that there is a point to them. I don't think the gulf between "no information" and "spurious information" is as wide as you make out. --John (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Except that our existing consensual practice does already allow for flags that represent sporting nationality. Not to mention the fact that they are already used in this way and have been for over a decade. Clearly there is a consensus that they can and should be used. A small handful of editors here, that seem to think flags are somehow a pox upon the readers of wikipedia that destroy any page they touch, can't change that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
All these are what the sports project have used but contrary to what the rest of WP does, even where flags would otherwise normally be used by references for other topics. We're looking for conformation across all WP projects, so what the area of sports have done for years does not matter if the rest of WP has done something else for years. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Masem is right. The whole point of a MoS is to avoid walled gardens where people do things their own way because they have always done so. The rest of Wikipedia has managed without these tiny flags for a few years now and we are the better for it. --John (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess I need to ask, why does it have to be this way? Different projects use color in charts more frequently than others. Different articles and projects seem to use a heavier dose of photos far more often than other projects. All these are within MOS guideline parameters, as are flags, so why would we keep narrowing our editor's abilities? Sports projects across the board tend to use these things and they are probably among the heaviest continual use editors on wikipedia. It's also not like they pull these things from thin air either. Whether it's the Olympics or soccer or tennis, these flags get put on bios by the governing bodies of the sports, or in the journals that cover them. They are everywhere in sports. When we do a bio on a CEO of a major company we don't go into intricate stats on how many thimbles were bought over the last 10 years... no one cares. But in most sports everyone cares about those stats, so we handle and write those bios differently. I think different projects need different amounts of elbow room. Do I think we use the flags in tennis articles too much? Yes I do. Not to distraction, but if I were creating these articles from scratch I would limit them more than do the other 90% of sports editors. But that's just me and I recognize that what I want isn't what most editors want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You make a couple of good points but you have to remember we do not write for editors, we write for readers. Where there is an overwhelming consensus "most editors" that flags should be used sparingly, we should go with that consensus. Your statement "in most sports everyone cares about those stats" cries out for a {{cn}} tag, and I would argue that where such stats are relevant they can be shown in many cases without using flags. --John (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying they can't be shown without flags, heck most articles could easily been done without photos, but why should we limit ourselves that way? We aren't just an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia, an almanac, a dictionary, an atlas, a music discography, etc... We encompass more than anything ever has before. And it's been shown time and time again that we aren't an English wikipedia, we are more a universal wikipedia than any of the other wikipedias. If flags were banned completely here (except only on articles about flags) it wouldn't bother me, and if they were used more on non-sports articles it also wouldn't bother me. But MOS guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are guidelines because it's impossible for them to work equally in all areas of wikipedia. Each area has different needs and demands of its readers. Sports imho is internationally nationalist. Our readers work their 10 hour jobs and blow off steam and live their lives through sporting events. They are inundated by flags every day they watch tv and look up their favorite snooker player. At every event there are flag carrying crowd members.

The youth of today is much more visually needy. My parents listened to the radio in the evening, I read newspapers with black and white text and watched tv on a box. Today it's handheld computers with every color imaginable. Everyplace is vying for peoples attention so they use their services as opposed to the old, out of date service. With flags everywhere, and sports such an important part of peoples entertainment lives, why should we put such heavy stipulations on their use? I know young writers at espn that use our tennis player stats pages that have told me it's far easier to scan a page and clump together flags of players than it is to use simply a 3 letter code. They can see in an instant the last time a nation won Wimbledon, even if they don't know the flag exactly they can see it and mouse over it. The code they have to know beforehand that AUS is Australia not Austria, or ESP is Spain. If most sports editors find these flags useful then probably most sports readers will find them so also. But again, I just don't see why we would want to limit ourselves and I think the individual projects are better equipped to understand their readers wants/needs then does wikipedia as a whole. Sorry this was kind of lengthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): What ESPN writers? Let's hear from them, not from you speaking for them. I challenge your assertion on serious grounds: If ESPN writers are regularly using WP as a source for sports stats that they later republish, this means that ESPN is not a reliable source for anything on WP any longer. Next, on what peer-reviewed developmental psychology sources are you basing your claim that young people in particular, in the current generation in particular, have trouble parsing information that is not presented in colorful pictures? Sounds like unfounded, pop-psych nonsense. Why would a project whose participants are overwhelmingly in favor of sticking cute pictures on everything be in a better position to determine for the entire encyclopedia's readership whether doing so is a good idea, than the entire encyclopedia's editorship at site-wide guidelines? That would be letting the foxes guard the hen-house. This doesn't even make sense: "They can see in an instant the last time a nation won Wimbledon, even if they don't know the flag exactly they can see it and mouse over it." If they don't even know what nation a flag belongs to they certainly can't "see in an instant the last time a nation won" by looking at flag icons. The argument that one has to know in advance that the symbol "ESP" applies to Spain is precisely the same as the argument that one has to know that the symbol Spain applies to Spain, so your argument that the first is an impermissible burden is also an argument that the second is as well. The fact that flags are an inundation of visual noise is a good reason to not use them here. The fact that people carry flags at events (representing a very specific country they are supporting) is totally unrelated to anything to do with the logic of [not] using flags in Wikipedia articles to often confusingly represent dozens, even hundreds of countries in charts and tables.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bladeboy1889: You are far too pro-icons and anti-MOS to neutrally summarize the conclusions of the debate so far. That's a job for an uninvolved admin. Your actual attempt at it is dismally exemplary of how to not work toward consensus and how to instead alienate people and appear entrenched.  — SMcCandlish ☺☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record - I'm not 'pro-icon' as you put it, what I'm actually for is Wikipedia being based on consensus and not held to ransom by MOS based on myths and enforced by a group of editors who have little to support their position apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My comments above were not an attempt to conclude the discussion - it was an attempt to maintain some momentum towards a conclusion.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
My goodness, but we needn't be so acidic in tone. Are you telling me you haven't seen wikipedia sourced on your local tv news? Wow. Hopefully it's not the news' only source when they publish something but they use us absolutely. The rest of the post and the one against Bladeboy is too adversarial and attack-like for me... this is a discussion on flags and of course it's peoples opinions. If you don't understand something I wrote simply ask for clarification. I saw opinions given, so I gave mine fwiw. Maybe others will make it a Wiki-Policy of no flags instead of a guideline but I simply said what I would do and why. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for the length of this treatise, as it seems I am the person who, through this compliance drive, seems to be at odds with the footballing community that I need to state my arguments firmly and comprehensively for the record.

Wikipedia's goal is to supply encyclopaedic information about each and every notable subject. We try to write concisely, provide content that is relevant and with due weight, and avoid digression and coatracking. The problem of indiscriminate and excessive use of flag icons in article space is akin to the excessive wikilinking on en:wp five years ago.

In a way, it's rather unfortunate that flags are not subject to copyright concerns that cover most other imagery because they would not be so overused. Today, I see that flag icons are being used primarily because they can, and is justified by some flimsy test of relevance notwithstanding provisions in MOS:FLAG:

"Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words."

The use of flags (or should I say "abuse") to sex up the article is mostly gratuitous and a violation of the guideline – most of the time, the flags are used in lieu of nation. Yes, accessibility is an issue, and it is a concern stated in MOSFLAG:

"The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as virtually no readers are familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size."

The vast majority of readers would not be able to identify more than a quarter of these flags using visual cues alone; just as many would be unable to identify all the countries by the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. Putting both together could result in a higher pass mark.
  • Aruba
  • Afghanistan
  • Angola
  • Anguilla
  • Åland
  • Albania
  • Andorra
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Argentina
  • Armenia
  • American Samoa
  • Antarctica
  • French Southern and Antarctic Lands
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Burundi
  • Belgium
  • Benin
  • Caribbean Netherlands
  • Burkina Faso
  • Bangladesh
  • Bulgaria
  • Bahrain
  • The Bahamas
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Saint Barthélemy
  • Belarus
  • Belize
  • Bermuda
  • Bolivia
  • Brazil
  • Barbados
  • Brunei
  • Bhutan
  • Bouvet Island
  • Botswana
  • Central African Republic
  • Canada
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  • Switzerland
  • Chile
  • China
  • Ivory Coast
  • Cameroon
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Republic of the Congo
  • Cook Islands
  • Colombia
  • Comoros
  • Cape Verde
  • Costa Rica
  • Cuba
  • Curaçao
  • Christmas Island
  • Cayman Islands
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Germany
  • Djibouti
  • Dominica
  • Denmark
  • Dominican Republic
  • Algeria
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt
  • Eritrea
  • Western Sahara
  • Spain
  • Estonia
  • Ethiopia
  • Finland
  • Fiji
  • Falkland Islands
  • France
  • Faroe Islands
  • Federated States of Micronesia
  • Gabon
  • United Kingdom
  • Georgia (country)
  • Guernsey
  • Ghana
  • Gibraltar
  • Guinea
  • Guadeloupe
  • The Gambia
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Greece
  • Grenada
  • Greenland
  • Guatemala
  • French Guiana
  • Guam
  • Guyana
  • Hong Kong
  • Heard Island and McDonald Islands
  • Honduras
  • Croatia
  • Haiti
  • Hungary
  • Indonesia
  • Isle of Man
  • India
  • British Indian Ocean Territory
  • Republic of Ireland
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Iceland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • Jordan
  • Japan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kenya
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Cambodia
  • Kiribati
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • South Korea
  • Kuwait
  • Laos
  • Lebanon
  • Liberia
  • Libya
  • Saint Lucia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Sri Lanka
  • Lesotho
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Latvia
  • Macau
  • Collectivity of Saint Martin
  • Morocco
  • Monaco
  • Moldova
  • Madagascar
  • Maldives
  • Mexico
  • Marshall Islands
  • North Macedonia
  • Mali
  • Malta
  • Myanmar
  • Montenegro
  • Mongolia
  • Northern Mariana Islands
  • Mozambique
  • Mauritania
  • Montserrat
  • Martinique
  • Mauritius
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mayotte
  • Namibia
  • New Caledonia
  • Niger
  • Norfolk Island
  • Nigeria
  • Nicaragua
  • Niue
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Nepal
  • Nauru
  • New Zealand
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Panama
  • Pitcairn Islands
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Palau
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Poland
  • Puerto Rico
  • North Korea
  • Portugal
  • Paraguay
  • State of Palestine
  • French Polynesia
  • Qatar
  • Réunion
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • Rwanda
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Sudan
  • Senegal
  • Singapore
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  • Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
  • Svalbard and Jan Mayen
  • Solomon Islands
  • Sierra Leone
  • El Salvador
  • San Marino
  • Somalia
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon
  • Serbia
  • South Sudan
  • São Tomé and Príncipe
  • Suriname
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Sweden
  • Eswatini
  • Sint Maarten
  • Seychelles
  • Syria
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
  • Chad
  • Togo
  • Thailand
  • Tajikistan
  • Tokelau
  • Turkmenistan
  • East Timor
  • Tonga
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tunisia
  • Turkey
  • Tuvalu
  • Taiwan
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda
  • Ukraine
  • United States Minor Outlying Islands
  • Uruguay
  • United States
  • Uzbekistan
  • Vatican City
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Venezuela
  • British Virgin Islands
  • United States Virgin Islands
  • Vietnam
  • Vanuatu
  • Wallis and Futuna
  • Samoa
  • Yemen
  • South Africa
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe
It is acknowledged in this proposal, currently still under discussion, that the use of flags in sport is in violation of MOSFLAG, and that it should be changed because they will continue to be used "like it or not". Such an argumentation represents disruption, and is anti-consensual in that it was not won through honest intellectual discussion of the merits or otherwise of doing so, but through a fait accompli. The current scale of usage of flags, whether using an excessively liberal interpretation of the guideline, or through people simply being used to seeing them plastered everywhere (like dates were once blanket linked globally) is in defiance of MOSFLAG. That these flags may have persisted in football articles for years is about as relevant as the spam and assorted copyright violations that have also persisted for years across our encyclopaedia. But let all be reminded that local consensus can never supplant general consensus. Football is not the only project in Wikipedia, and the global recommendation is meant to balance the needs of the various constituencies and stakeholders within the encyclopaedia. The implementation of their removal of same is execution of the consensus that exists.

Without even starting to talk about players' nationalities, it is easy to find examples of overuse: there is the indiscriminate flagging of presidents, managers[3] and physiotherapists[4]. I have even seen flags used to indicate location of stadia where some international matches are played. There is also cruft like the dual citizenship – not only would such be of little utility, it adds a level of confusion that one would need to clarify with a coatrack about how/why they would represent one country and not another. I don't believe anyone has ever contested the relevance of nationality to the athlete in question, so nobody would see the problem with the use within the relevant biography. However, none of this specific use of any flag for a given player's passport nationality in club articles is of direct relevance to the club. The crux is the notion of "representative nationality" When playing for a given club, the players NEVER represent their own countries. If anything, they are playing for the 'nation' of their adopted clubs. The players may represent their countries outside of the club's games, but that's not relevant except in the player bios. Nationalities of players in a club context is thus rarely relevant in individual cases.

Playing for a national team is a huge honour and privilege reserved for the talented few, yet we see flags used in a significant quantity of articles far beyond what I believe is optimal. Flags are currently most often [ab]used to indicate players' legal nationalities and not of any country that they actually represent. Even if some of these are national squad members, there is no encyclopaedic need to create laundry lists of these cases. Much is made of the "usefulness" argument. But usefulness is determined more by pertinent analysis than the mere presence of raw data, of which this flag usage is an example. People, teams, buildings, and works are notable because they are different or stand out in some way. If they only conform to expectation, or to some mould or stereotype, this is by definition non-notable. The same would apply to the notability or uniqueness of information given. To be truly useful information and less confusing for readers, the nationality issue in an article should be mentioned as an exception and not by default.

If the notion of "representative nationality" has been followed, the implication is that the player has been capped for his/her country. But that is often fallacious: assuming for example that the player in AC Milan is a Japanese national say, and flags are in use, it's impossible to tell if the player only has that as a nationality, or is a capped international, unless you know all the players and their national squads. As this example suggest the flag indicates passport nationality, as most of the players in this squad, if not all, never played for any country team. And how this information can be useful in a club article is a mystery to me. If anything, the perverted usage of flags makes it potentially misleading of the state of affairs. In a globalised world, players are pursuing their careers abroad in increasingly large numbers. Sportsmen and women may play in countries other than the one they were born in or whose nationality they adopted, and there is really nothing significant in the possibility or likelihood that a player may be called up for play in their national teams. Talented players are much sought after in the richer leagues, such as the Premier League or Bundesliga. All clubs these days have put in various measures to manage national call-ups, including contract provisions and squad redundancies.

Some have stated the talk taking place within certain countries as to the mix of foreign players (too few, too many, etc) as an argument for including flags in individual club articles. I would say that the sensible way of handling it would be to include elements affecting the entire game globally in a country in Football in country or Country league articles. There, they can be referred and link to from individual club articles where there is discussion of particular relevance to the latter. Putting pretty splodges of colour into individual club or season articles is just plain lazy and indiscriminate throwing together of information without letting it create encyclopaedic value. And it isn't a substitute for explaining the implications or controversies that have been taking place. Any element affecting the overall composition of a club can be included in the form of a summary or an analysis table in the relevant club or season article. There should not be any general need to deal with individual players' nationalities within the text of any given article except for the biography on that individual. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself - please stop saying that these icons are inaccessible and then simply quote the exact piece of MOS that should be changed to be factually accurate to support your argument. It is not true. The icons you have included above do not fail any accessibility guidelines either on Wikipedia or outside of it eg the global W3C accessibility standards [5]. For something to be accessible it must not prevent someone from gaining the information it is conveying through an alternative means. Yes, someone who is blind can't see the flags but if they are using a screen reader it will read out the name of the country because the flags you used contain alt tags stating them. That provides the information and therefore is accessible. Someone maybe colour blind or lacking other vision that means they can't identify flags in the same ways as someone with 20-20 vision, but they also has the option of locating the information using hover to view the alt tags or by navigating to the linked page. There is nothing there that prevents them from accessing the information. It might be slightly inconvenient but it isn't inaccessible. Finally lack of recognition is not an accessibility issue as you seem to claim - nowhere is that a requirement in either the WP accessibility guidelines or the W3C guidelines. Someone not knowing what country a flag symbolises does not prevent them from identifying the correct information in the same way as those I described above. Were the icons you included were simply a graphic and did not contain a suitable alt tag or be linked to the relevant country article then they you would be right, they would fail accessibility guidelines, both those included on wikipedia on those set outside of it, but used correctly these icons do not fail any accessibility test. Which is exactly what I suggested the guidelines should be changed to reflect.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
how can we get more eyes on this discussion? All this writing just for the sake of a bunch of small flags seems disproportionate, and I'm not surprised that my thoughts are getting lost in the arguments above and distilled in this way. Yes, accessibility is an issue, but one of several. Flags are being used in the mistaken belief that they conveys useful information. But by failing to distil that raw information, it may look on the surface that information is being given, but in reality it's lazy and unhelpful. Kind of like dumping huge chunks of raw data into the encyclopaedia and forcing the reader to sort out for themselves and work out what to do with it. Used with restraint but combined with pertinent analysis, they can be rendered much more powerful. I would reiterate that the guideline is clear as to the usages of flags. And while I respect that some of you, in particular WP:FOOTY, may not like that interpretation and have been ignoring it for years, and are now arguing to liberalise usage, the guidelines are mostly followed elsewhere.

Unless the above proposal by Giant Snowman (or something similar) gains traction, your continued use of flags in the way you are doing at present remains in violation to the guideline. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Offline accessability is just as important as online for us. And that means any accessibility that relies on things like alt text or linking is a failure of accessability. Yes, that doesn't rule out the use of the country name or three-letter abbreviation next to the flag to indicate the country name, but with that, where most of these flag icons are a problem within large tables, you create more problems with both and might as well just leave the country name, to assure maximum on- and off-line accessability. We do consider what the average reader will know (this is applied to linking terms for example, expecting that the reader has had a secondary-level schooling in geography to avoid linking to major places), and we know the average high schoolers will know less than a fraction of the flags of the world, and hence why they are terrible infographics in addition to all other problems with them. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: - please identify where in the WP:ACCESS it says that "Offline accessability is just as important as online for us"? Or maybe locate it in the W3C guidelines? [6] @Ohconfucius: Once again you just repeat the claim that flags icons are inaccessible without even attempting to justify that in relation to the information I provided. You also talk a lot about how WP:FLAG is a broad and wide consensus across wikipedia and imply that only a small minority of editors feel that it their use is reasonable to convey nationality. The reality is that thousands of flag icons are added to thousands of Wikipedia articles every day by thousands of editors (as your edit history shows, this isn't confined to football pages as you imply) with those editors believing they are a reasonable and universal way of identifying nationality. There are even more editors who will see their use and not feel the need to remove them. In comparison there are a very small number of editors who wish to ensure strict adherence to this piece of MOS and make a point of enforcing it. That situation could be argued as that in actuality there is a wikipedia wide consensus that the use of flags to denote nationality is acceptable and those refusing to amend the MOS to reflect that are the ones going against consensus. WP:BURO states that "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." Just because most editors don't come here to argue that case doesn't mean that that unwritten consensus automatically doesn't exist.
Now, let's leave aside the use of flags or otherwise to denote nationality and concentrate on your points about the need to reflect nationality. It may surprise you that I'm in broad agreement with you there, there is an overuse of nationality in many articles, including many in football and other sports articles. You are correct in stating that nationality of a kitman is irrelevant and that labeling every single individuals or location's nationality just because it has one, should be discouraged. I think the same could be said for most of the editors who have argued for a change to the guidelines. Where we disagree is your position that that is blanket-ly (apologies for making a word up there) the case unless the article is specifically referring to an international competition such as the Olympics. A prime example of this was a claim earlier in the discussion that the use of nationality within Formula One articles is irrelevant (that may have been someone elses point but it is a good generic example), despite the fact that at the end of each race they raise the flags of the three winning drivers, play the national anthem of the winner and then the anthem of the constructor, thus proving that the sport itself considers nationality important. Similarly within football, the national make up of squads is relevant, as historically the various governing bodies have legislated on that very issue - this was largely relaxed in the mid nineties but many national associations are now considering re-introducing limits. Even in an unlegislated world, there is a huge controversy within the sport, the media and the fans, as to the national make up of club teams, with claims that an influx of non-national imports hinders the progress of the national team. Therefore a broad indication of the national make up of the squad is often of interest to readers with an interest in football. It may not be the primary concern but there is enough interest to make providing that information relevant. And the issue of whether an individual has actually represented a nation or not is itself irrelevant, the various legislative measures do not distinguish, a foreign national is a foreign national whether they have actually played for that country internationally or not.
So my position is twofold - one: that the wording of the guidelines should be changed to reflect the reality of accessibility rather than a propagating a misconception of it and two: that the guidelines about 'relevant usage' be revised to properly reflect the differences in relevance within different subject areas rather than assuming use is unacceptable by default.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Commenting only on the accessibility point, and sorry if this isn't in the right place in the discussion.

As a reader with pretty non-standard colour vision and not particularly good eyesight in general, I do begin to tire of being told that because the W3C guidelines don't actually prevent me from accessing flagcountry information, then that's OK. I'm aware that I can hover to access the country name, so long as I'm using a device with that technology available to me. I can also navigate to the flag's page to see what country it represents. But it's a pain in the arse being obliged to navigate away from the page I actually want to be on, particularly on a dodgy mobile connection or – a situation which fortunately doesn't apply to me, but does to plenty of our readers in less technologically developed parts of the world – on an ageing dialup.

We may not be prevented from accessing this content, but if it's so important in the context it's being used, why does accessing it have to be made so damn difficult? From where I sit, the most efficient manner of conveying the information would be to supplement any flag with the name of its country (and no, a set of three random letters isn't an adequate substitute). Those with the ability to readily identify a flag lose nothing. Those without, for whatever reason, gain an awful lot. thanks for listening, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing is the amount of space we available in some charts. When making a team bracket for soccer or tennis, there is barely room for a three letter code let alone adding "United Kingdom." A simple flag with no wording actually fits the best while providing info on mouseover or click. I understand that brackets may be an exception and that most charts could handle the full country name along with a flag. So in tennis we would use the flag and full country name when possible, then the flag and country code, then just the flag for brackets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I can appreciate your position, but that doesn't change the fact that the W3C sets the universal standard for accessibility for the web and that any legal challenge to that would be measured against those guidelines. Those guidelines are developed by a global collective with full representation from individuals with specific needs and bodies representing them, you may not be happy with their conclusions but that doesn't alter the fact that they set the standards of what accessibility is. My point is that editors can't just decide on their own interpretation of accessibility that deviates from those guidelines and just say "it's inaccessible because I think it is".Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
My point is that editors can't just decide that because W3C have set a acceptable standard of accessibility, Wikipedia should therefore be precluded from doing better than that acceptable standard where scope for such improvement exists. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This idea that people must know the flag for it to be used is strange. For example, many people will have no idea what the text Cape Verde means, just as they won't know what   (CPV) is – that's why we link to explain the topic, like any other content. If a user has never heard of a country's name, then the flag and trigramme (with tool tip to show the country name) is by no means any less intelligible. (I've best made my arguments here.)
The issue of flag usage is not just limited to sports, as suggested by some above, but is also commonly found in our history and military articles (usages which never seem to be condemned in these discussions). No one in this discussion has advocated usage of national flags in circumstances where nationality is not a factor, or part of the sporting cultural context. I disagree with Bladeboy1889 that arguments against this proposal stem from "MOS defending" when lots of sports flag usage is already defined as appropriate use.
I'm also very disappointed to see Ohconfucius berate the current usages of sports flags on physiotherapists, managers etc – that's exactly what my proposal is looking to mitigate. We need a sports guideline to more narrowly define good flag usage for sports – history shows the status quo of just referring to the broad MOS leads to widespread poor usage and makes it difficult to enforce usage. I feel my goodwill on this matter has been absolutely wasted before ideologues. SFB 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Accessibility is more than just about what the W3C asks for - they're worried about making sure the HTML code is formatted in the right way and various other things to provide alternative text for visual and audio elements are present to assure those with older browsers, disabilities, and other issues will still be able to access the content. Our concerns go further, to make sure that the content itself is fully accessible without any other requirements. We cannot rely on tool tips or clickable links at all times; we strive to have pages be written and presented in such a way they can reasonably stand alone in an off-line manner, which assures that the online version is even better. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No - the W3C defines what constitutes online accessibility. You or I don't get to choose or insist that something else constitutes accessibility, they do. Who is this 'we' that you refer to that require pages to be able to be printed out? There is no mention of this aim in WP:ACCESS. Just because you think something should be considered an accessibility issue doesn't mean that you can simply claim that it is.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The W3C's version of accessibility is the type that, where there are legal requirements for information to be available in a certain way (ala under the US'a Americans with Disabilities Act), that they are standards to follow. We (editors here ) are speaking towards the common sense idea of accessibility, which includes what the W3C has to say about assuring good HTML and necessary ALT stuff. And even then, as you note, WP:ACCESS is aimed more at how we format things to meet the W3C. All this stuff beyond that should be common sense for the goals of this project, knowing that we do cater to offline reading. There's no single policy or MOS on this, though concepts are discussed at WP:MOSLINK for example. So when we're talking accessibility, we are talking about what our goals should be that exceed the core requirements that W3C's "accessibility" definitions require. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that despite none of this being written down anywhere either on Wikipedia or outside of it, accessibility is defined by an unwritten, and uncodified notion based on your interpretation of what accessibility should be?Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of unwritten common sense advice that one should keep in mind when writing WP articles, so yes, that's a completely valid argument. Mind you, this accessibility issue is also separate from the other issue, that everywhere else on WP we have restricted the use of flag icons to only be used when the person/place/thing is a representative of the political body of that nation and not just because it happens to be in that country. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of what considerations should be, that doesn't make it a valid statement of fact on which to base any guidelines. If you believe your version of accessibility should be the accepted norm then you should gather consensus for it and get it codified at WP:ACCESS. Until that point it is not acceptable just to claim accessibility issues as a fact, based purely on your opinion. You're right that accessibility is a separate issue, however as "they're not accessible" was the main justification used by many of those opposed to the original RFC it is completely relevant to highlight the inaccuracies in that assumption.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The accessibility point is still the main issue, but also remember that the advice currently in this MOS is completely against the approach that is being proposed. Further, again, you are effectively saying is "because we have no explicit advice about how to consider offline versions of pages, we should completely ignore it". I figure we don't have explicit advice for this because it is common sense that we should always consider. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The logic of your first sentences escapes me so I can't comment - I've no Idea what you mean by that. As for your second point, you are still talking about your opinion, nothing that is codified, nothing with verifiable external sources and nothing to suggest consensus. Just your opinion. I don't think how a page from wikipedia performs when printed out is an issue worth considering at all - the internet is the internet, web pages are web pages, they are not designed to be read on paper, they are designed to be read on a screen with all the technologies that implies and there is no compunction here or anywhere else online to limit the uses of web technologies just to support paper and ink. It may be a 'nice thing to have' but that doesn't mean that not to do so makes something inaccessible and to claim so is simply incorrect.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: - can you please nominate Template:Flagicon for deletion as a contravention of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility? By your logic, this template is not appropriate for Wikipedia due to its inherent accessibility issues. Also, can you please start a separate proposition to remove the "Accompany flags with country names" and "Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used" sections of this MOS page? Your argument goes far beyond being a sports-only issue. SFB 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Besides being pointy, that would unnecessary. The template, alone, isn't a problem as long as it used where MOSFLAGS says its okay, and if the editors add in the country name nearby (which {{flagcountry}} can do as well). It's how its used, not its existance that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. So your previous statement ("accessibility that relies on things like alt text or linking is a failure of accessability. ") is not an issue that affects this discussion, as sports usage is not looking to move away from alt text or some form of text representation the country with its flag. SFB 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy, how did you come to that conclusion? Accessibility is not the only problem with flagicons; certain sports projects have developed their own internal habits around using little flag pictures which ensure widespread breaches of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP.
Thousands of people (and other entities, but let's focus on people for now) are given a nationality on wikipedia which is not their nationality in real life. It's about time that we followed the encyclopædia's core policies. If any wikiproject wants to make up pretty labels for people regardless of accuracy, I suggest they find a different website for that hobby. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe you've misread my comment. In short: flagicon accessibility is not a sports-specific phenomenon and the proposed sports guideline for flagicons is no different from that in the main guidelines. SFB 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above in my !vote, the use of bare national flags messes up content when the article is aggregated into the Book namespace. For example, see Book:Aston Villa F.C. – the use of bare national flags in the "First-team squad" section of the book makes the section indecipherable when the book is rendered as a PDF. Without consulting other resources, how many people could figure out in a PDF or print medium that Yacouba Sylla is from Mali? The three–letter country code would be better, but still not very meaningful (the reader would likely need to consult another resource to figure out many of the codes). Mojoworker (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick (but not exhaustive) list of things from wikipedia pages that don't translate to printed material: piped links, anchored links, any links, ref display on hover, ref highlight on select, audio files, video files, the ability to have the page read by a screen reader, the ability to change the font size, the ability to change the contrast and colours and the ability to edit the page. Would you suggest that all of those are therefore inaccessible and therefore should be avoided? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
York City Football Club and some other Wikipedia books
I suggest no such thing. The examples you listed all provide extra online functionality, and (unlike bare flag icons) none of them degrade the usability of the content in a WP:Book in any way. But, if you're reducing the discussion to argumentum ad absurdum, then I'll respond in kind: One can jot notes in the margins of the printed version, and (once the WP:Book has been read) the printed version could assist in kindling a fire, or perhaps be used in a pinch to wipe your ass. Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how you'd identify the location of the piped link above on the printed page. That is all irrelevant of course, I'll repeat there is nowhere in the accessibility guidelines on wikipedia or outside of it, that states that unless content can be rendered in print without losing any function that it is inaccessible. Therefore to claim to the contrary is inaccurate and misleading. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with another editor. Though others have brought it up above, I never mentioned accessibility – that's not the basis of my argument with this proposal. The uselessness of bare flag icons in print or PDF form have nothing to do with disabilities or MOS:ACCESS. And it's not covered there because it's covered in the MOS:FLAG section.
I have no quarrel with clarifying the "Use of flags for sportspersons" section, but any endorsement of the current Template:Football squad player where it renders without a country name, contrary to the "Accompany flags with country names" section of the MOS is what I have a problem with. So I'm stating my concern in accordance with the fourth sentence of User:GiantSnowman's proposal: "If there is concern over the exclusive use of flags", and where that template is specifically called out.
Take a look at the menu on the left side of this page, under the Wikipedia globe logo and notice the "Print/export" section. If we are discounting the validity and usefulness of printing or exporting Wikipedia content, and subordinating that core functionality (that's been here ever since I started using Wikipedia something like 10 years ago), simply to accommodate the fait accompli that we find ourselves with today where misguided editors have put bare flag icons into soccer rosters, etc., then I'd say this proposal needs to become a widely publicized RfC. And assuming the current proposal doesn't succeed, I think Template:Football squad player (and perhaps others) need to be modified ASAP to be brought into compliance with the MOS. Mojoworker (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Revised sports flag proposal

I have read through the conversations and have tried to condense the main points into a proposed guideline for flag usage on sports articles. I believe a sports-specific guideline is required because of significant flag usage within the culture of sport and the fact that the main guideline has had so little authority, for so many years, in the sports topic area and within its editing community. Ultimately, without the buy-in of most active sports editors, then any style guideline is of little relevance and we remain stuck with the status quo of bad usage. The reality is that only those who have an active, editing stake within the sports topic area can effect change in how sports articles are written and presented.

  • Please review the proposed sports-specific flag guideline here: User:Sillyfolkboy/Resources/MOS:SportsFlag. It has two parts:
    • The main section defines acceptable sports flag usage more specifically than here, and is intended to fall within the spirit of the main MOSflag guidelines. Please can people review these and if they do contradict the main MOS then present the text that prohibits that usage type.
    • The disputed section shows the two flag usages for which there is no common ground between the non-sports editing and sports editing communities.

I'm happy to postpone discussion of these two disputed points with the intention that we look first to remove bad flag usage that falls outside of the given points in the guideline. We can then take more time to discuss whether the disputed usages themselves should be approved or removed. This is an imperfect design, but I really don't see how any other, less flexible method can help effect change on sports articles. SFB 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good suggestion. It won't do anything to solve the current debate because it still has wording which can be interpreted differently depending on your knowledge of the topic (i.e. around whether nationality is relevant). Also the line "flag icons should not be used for the same nationality in which the team is located" would just end up with squad lists looking silly as some lines would have flags and others not. Number 57 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the latter point. Resolute 20:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've build a new test version of the squad templates based upon the proposal. Does this squad list really look silly? It actually makes the non-national players stand out (which is the stated aim in the above conversations). In the current version it is hard to quickly see which country is which. Ahmed Hayel in the testcase becomes much more readable. SFB 16:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, yes, I think that looks ridiculous. Resolute 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57: Could you give more precise feedback/examples on the interpretation issue? Thanks. SFB 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what is wrong with the template in use at Boca Juniors#Current squad - it has flags, it has trigrammes, it looks neat and tidy. Removing the flags entirely simply does not reflect the actual use of flags in sports in the world e.g. I was in Rome to watch the tennis a few days ago, and on the big scoreboard there was a Spanish flag next to Nadal and a British flag next to Murray and an American flag next to Serena. GiantSnowman 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Snow, it looks just fine. As does Roger Federer and Shanghai Masters Draw. Would I personally do the Shanghai draw differently? Maybe. I might only have the flags on the first round and not duplicate them each round or in the seeding section. But that's not the long established way our editors like them so I leave them as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
They fail our policies as a general encyclopedia (which is what we are writing towards), since we have determined for all other areas that flags should only be used to indicate direct representation of the political body of the flag, otherwise it is too much excessive weight and emphasis. It doesn't matter what the sports world uses, while we are incorporating elements of sporting encyclopedias, we have determined these specific aspect is counter to how flags are avoided in all other areas. Country names work just fine. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You are saying that some areas (sports) are not allowed flags because other areas are not allowed flags? Nonsense. Composers do not have infoboxes on Wikipedia, should we banish infoboxes from every other type of article as well? GiantSnowman 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Stop countering appeal to authority fallacies with logic! Resolute 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No, infoboxes are optional, but lead sections are not (outside of stubs); we would be enforcing that. And yes, we are looking for reasonable conformity among pages particularly when it comes to MOS elements, since any of these pages can be arrived at from other pages. If every other page outside of the sports area avoids the use of flags (save for the limited uses presently described) and then link to sports pages where flags are used without any caution, we're confusing the reader and putting undue weight on that flag connection. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Masem is right. It is not an appeal to authority to suggest that if we are to have a Manual of Style it should apply to all areas of content, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Writing is just fine. We don't want or need articles that are a sea of tiny flags. --John (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The MOS should apply equally across the project. No exception. No deposit, no return. JOJ Hutton 18:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
A statement that is objectively ridiculous given the breadth and scope of this project. One size fits all never actually fits all. And John, you basically just repeated the origin of this dispute: the MOS, as worded, is out of alignment with the reality of this topic area. A very wide range of editors and editing history has disregarded it as unnecessarily limiting. That indicates it is the MOS that is flawed. Resolute 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, yes, the MOS is meant to apply across the board. That same logic would be upheld in any encyclopedia, that a single approach to styling and presentation is chosen to present a unified, clear approach to information, ignoring subject-specific styles that would otherwise clash with the larger work. Just because our scope is larger doesn't mean our MOS is no longer relevant across the board. There are some allowances for variations based on field in certain areas (for example, we do not enforce a fixed citation style as long as the citation style in an article is consistent within it). However, when it came to flag icons, it was found that - not just in sports but in many other venues - these flag icons were being used willy-nilly without thinking of implications, and thus globally the MOS states the uses should be very limited, despite that going against the apparent approach that many sports works might use. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If MOS is to be applied across the board can it be actually be written based on factual accuracy rather than myths and misconceptions with a smattering of POV please? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel very old to bring this point up but here goes. As recently as 2007, our article on the popular band U2 looked like this. Observe the little tricolour in the infobox? Seeing the amount of useless drama and misunderstanding that this tiny icon caused educated me and changed the way I think about flags. Since we got rid of flags in infoboxes, that is a whole area of drama that we no longer have. I don't miss it. The proposal here is one that aims to turn the clock back (in one area of the project) for no good reason, and I could never support that, especially in the absence of any good reason to do so. --John (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I'm sorry you had a bad experience (7 years ago!) with nationalist bullshit, but that is no reason to stop using flags in sports articles when that is clearly what is in use in the topic area itself, both on Wikipedia and in the real world. GiantSnowman 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • But these are biographies of people's entire lives, giving undue weight to a flag is like putting lipstick on a pig. It looks nice but it draws too much attention away from the bacon. JOJ Hutton 12:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was a bad experience. It was a very thought-provoking process and it evolved into the early days of MOSFLAG. Maybe you have to have such an experience before you can answer the question "how exactly does having a flag next to somebody's name in a list of players cause that?" To me, having seen the nonsense that went on around the U2 article seven years ago, the answer to the question is obvious. --John (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • TMI. Do you recall the days when every date was linked, as were simple words like "married" and "divorced"? You can have too much of a good thing. The message you are sending the reader is: "We put all the data is there because some of us think it's relevant and useful. And if you can't fucking work out for yourself how to make use of it, then you must be stupid." ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll put my opinion on this in the simplest and most direct way possible: flags in sports articles are completely useless decorations, and should not be used at any time. That should make for a fairly simple guideline, no?—Kww(talk) 14:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Easily countered: flags in sports articles are eminently useful aids that impart valuable knowledge to the reader. Simple, yes? Resolute 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The burden would be on you to demonstrate how little flecks of colour that pertain to something completely irrelevant to a topic were "eminently useful". They are pretty, certainly, and I guess that can help hold some readers' attention, but "eminently useful" is an exaggeration.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No more an exaggeration than "completely useless decorations". Resolute 14:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Kww, describing nationality in sport as "completely irrelevant" shows a deep ignorance of the topic. GiantSnowman 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The appearance of the country's flag is completely irrelevant to the topic.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that a statement about "flags in sports articles" is far too generalized. In a biographical article, a singular flag icon used for the "Country" (or similar) field in an infobox (e.g. Roger Federer) is a bad idea, since it draws undue weight to that specific infobox field. The complete name of the country—in text—is sufficient in that context. But using icons in a table or vertical list (e.g. 2009 Shanghai ATP Masters 1000 – Singles) is useful because it helps you navigate a player's path through the bracket. Therefore, I think that the use of flag icons needs to depend on two things: the relevance of a player's nationality to the sport (e.g. do reliable sources regularly make note of the nationality, as they do for tennis) and also the utility of icons when browsing the page. Both conditions must be present. We should not apply flag icons to lists of names where nationality is not relevant, nor should we use flag icons in non-list (or table) context. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree on the usefulness of the flag icon in that specific example (And likely others) , primarily due to the fact that some countries are represented by more than one player, making the flag icon a non-unique identifier. The name should be sufficient, but even then the various seed/initial placement numbers which float along the rounds are sufficient to visually track a player's progress. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I used that article as an example only because it was mentioned above. Yes, unique icons are more effective (e.g. easy to find all the games of a specific national team on a tournament article like 2014 IIHF World Championship) but even if the icon is not unique to a single player or team, I still think it is a noticeable improvement over a wall of text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My specific critique of the current Boca Juniors squad style:
  1. Why do we have 31 Argentine flags and 31 links to Argentina, when we could indicate this same information by adding a single brief note in the header text? (as in my test-case)
  2. Why is the second most important information by placement the nationality?
  3. Why is there no header to state what the flag refers to, as with the other pieces of information?
  4. Why is the flag and nationality located next to squad number and position, when it logically has nothing to do with either of those pieces of information? (it should be next to the player name)
  5. Why does the header text state the flags refer to national team when they cover non-international players? (it should be national affiliation, not team)
  6. Why do we visually stress nationality so much over other information?
  7. Why is nationality such a crucial piece of information to include, when equally (if not more) important factors such as age, home-grown status, favoured sub-position type, games played, date joined club, and international team inclusion are not shown?
I know the template style has been around for a while so people are used to it (pretty much the same since 2005), but it's actually quite an arbitrary construction that can be improved very easily. Adding further information would help reduce the nationality emphasis by default. I have to say that the current standard of flagicon with no text in football, tennis, and F1, is a poor approach that should be severely reduced. That's the one thing that the Boca Junior example thankfully does achieve. SFB 20:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it a poor approach at all, and apparently neither does the sourcing. I believe the standard approach in tennis articles is to use flagathlete in most instances and try to use flagicon only where space is at a premium, like in brackets. Of course thousands of articles don't follow tennis guidelines or are changed back right after they are corrected. I would say nationality IS naturally disproportionately more important in real life pro tennis than is age and a lot of other information like if the player is right or left handed. I would guess it's the main reason 50% of tennis articles ever get updated... national interest to that particular editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, rendering the icon without a country name as Template:Football squad player does is contrary to the "Accompany flags with country names" section of MOS:FLAG and should be fixed ASAP. Mojoworker (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the relative importance of nationality over other attributes; it's probably for the same reasons as nationality is the first descriptive term used in practically all BLP articles. It's important to people. Otherwise nationality wouldn't be in ledes at all. It doesn't really wash that nationality is not important. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mojoworker: - the MOS is incorrect and needs to be brought into line with widespread, standard practice, not the other way around. It is interesting to note that of those supporting the deletion of flags, none actually seem to edit sports articles... GiantSnowman 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"Widespread" practice is what is applied to all topics, and in that regards, again, sports is the odd-man out in that flags are not often used to indicate nationality. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Except that isn't true either. There are numerous subjects where flags are used that aren't sports such as historical articles, governmental articles, entertainment articles (although I have noticed a concerted effort by a couple editors recently to remove them from those articles). I could go on. To be honest almost every subject area uses flagicons in one way or another. To suggest that sports articles are the lone hold out is not only wrong it is ludicrous. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I've plenty to say about the football squad template, so I'll take that conversation to the football project. I'm not really sensing that my time is being well spent on this issue – I can count the number of editors supporting my proposition on no hands. I see two broad camps:
  • About half of the editors here believe:
  1. The MOS should not allow for flag usage outside of an international sports competition situation
  2. Defining acceptable sports flag usage in greater detail is also a negative step (even if that guideline is entirely complaint with the current MOS)
  3. Abbreviations of country names alongside flag icons are unacceptable and names should always be given in full
  4. Some of these editors are not happy with the current MOSFlag guidelines and want it to be far stricter
  • About another half of the editors here believe:
  1. Usage of flags to display a national aspect of people and teams in a sporting context is acceptable and a useful way to display the information
  2. Usage of three-letter country codes to represent a country name alongside a flag is acceptable
  3. The MOS should be refined to further clarify sports flag usage (and be more amenable in respect of the above two points)
A total of zero editors are interested in supporting a solution that represents an improvement upon current real-world practice from their perspective, but does not align with their beliefs in every single aspect of the proposal. As the above desires of the two groups directly conflict there is, in effect, no consensus. Personally, I read that as consensus to (a) keep the MOS as it is and (b) leave the sports topic area to continue to use flags in a way that is not aligned with the current MOS (not withstanding a newly found desire by the former group of editors to engage in a large-scale edit war in a topic area they have no great deal of interest in). I'll get my coat... SFB 16:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as one that would be in the first camp, I think you have it wrong. I would have no problem with sports defining appropriate uses as long as those uses are compliant to MOS to start (what uses have been suggested are not, however), and where those uses are appropriate, the three-letter code instead of the country name can be used.
Realistically, the core issue comes down to using flags in things like team rosters (for the most part) where it is showing the nationality of the player, which is 100% a no-no from the MOS. Everything else involves implementation details on that point, which can be resolved. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
So what flag usage would you consider acceptable in a non-international representation scenario? SFB 19:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No flags at all should be used for non-international scenarios. Country names to indicate nationality, sure but not flags. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have expressed support for your proposal, and believe since it is in line with the existing guidelines, while adding additional clarity and instructions, it represents forward progress. I regret that many seem to wish to continue arguing about their preferred changes to existing guidelines, outside of the proposal. isaacl (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree also. SFB pretty much sums up what's been going on here and what should happen moving forward. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
DJsasso, I am speaking of external sources, not internal WP pages. I never see flags used in the way that I see here - outside the arena of sports of course. Yes, there are a lot of internal missteps with flags too, but that's not how I'm judging it. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Why mindlessly parrot sources? We should be considering what is appropriate for Wikipedia and what is the most effective way of conveying the information we choose to show to the widest possible audience, just like you would any other content (e.g. we don't mirror the hyperbole of sports commentary). SFB 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
But you want to mirror the way sports reports their stories with using flags and the like, so that seems like a bit of hyperbole. Further , we are encyclopedia, we're in the business of summarizing external sources in the first place, so we chose a MOS that averages out the way information is presented across all sources. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The disputed usage in the proposal uses the culture of the sport as the base point, not reportage. On that basis, flags would not be used on something like Manny Pacquiao vs. Brandon Rios – though the BoxRec site may use them, but flags are not usually an integral part of the imagery or rules of that non-international competition. The proposal defines reasons for usage based on the event itself, not certain sources. SFB 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support using flags in infoboxes -- as a matter of common sense, as well as for the reasons that those official sports urls use flags -- in sports where the official sport url uses flags. Examples would be golf and tennis; where, per consensus editing we already typically reflect such flags in infoboxes as a matter of consensus practice and common sense. Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the question is. The question is whether to broaden the usage from sporting nationality to also include whatever else people want it it to stand for, such as birth place, country of citizenship, country of nationality, or whatever, and to do so purely on the basis of it being a sports article, as if that made it magically special and different.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WT:FOOTY canvassing/editwarring against MOS:ICONS compliance

[Note to anyone not following the dispute in any detail: This is not about removing flag icons from the template, but properly documenting that they should not be used to indicate birthplace or residence rather than sporting nationality.]

The following was posted recently to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football:

An editor has been making changes to the football squad template documentation today, mostly in relation to the flags debate, which I have disputed. It would be good to have some third party input to review whether those changes are consistent with the outcome (or lack of one) of the debate. Thanks, Number 57 11:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: you know that there is an ongoing discussion to this matter, why would you then choose to make such edits? GiantSnowman 11:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And User:Number 57 has been attempting to revert away any material added to the documentation there that attempts to bring it into compliance with MOS:ICONS.[7][8] The idea seems to be (see his edit summaries here, here and here for example) that because he disagrees with MOS:ICONS that it can be ignored, that there's somehow a "consensus" (in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy) to ignore MOS:ICONS when it comes to soccer, and that therefore some sort of WP:BRD process has to be engaged into to even document Template:Football squad player properly much less change the template itself to comply with MOS:ICONS. This is nonsense, because the ongoing dispute on this page, above, is clearly not going to come to a consensus to significantly change MOS:ICONS, and it remains a major site-wide guideline in full force, not some disputed proposal that templates do not have to comply with.

In answer to GiantSnowman: You know that the presence of a discussion about whether to change a guideline's wording does not invalidate the guideline in the interim, and that this discussion is clearly going to end in no consensus anyway, so why would you and Number 57 chose to make such anti-MOS:ICON edits?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also some relevant/redundant discussion at User talk:SMcCandlish#Changes to the Football squad template documentation, and at archives of Template talk:Football squad player and of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons and of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You making such massive changes, against strong opposition, was a silly move to make IMO. GiantSnowman 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bringing the documentation into conformity with the actual guideline is not "making...massive changes". Please see wikt:hyperbole. What you think is "silly" or not is not germane to this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh As has been pointed out repeatedly to  SMcCandlish, there is no consensus that the template violates the guideline (some editors think it does, some don't), and to add comments to the template documentation that there is a clear cut right or wrong on this subject is just wrong. As for the canvassing/edit warring claims, I suggest Mr McCandlish reacquaints himself with WP:CANVASS and WP:BRD, which he was asked to respect rather than reverting his controversial amendments back into the documentation. Number 57 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're mistaken when it comes to that sort of "nation" data in the examples and instructions you keep reverting. The blathery dispute above is about whether to change MOSICONS to permit that sort of use, not about what that sort of use it constitutes. There's not any dispute at all that using such a flag icon in this template to indicate a player's birthplace or residence nationality (not their professional sporting nationality) is, in fact, using the flag icon to indicate their birthplace nationality; let's not be silly. There is no dispute at all that the guideline has an entire section called WP:MOSICONS#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death, addressing (in the negative) precisely that case. QED. Many particular uses of the template also violate WP:MOSICONS#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, which my documentation improvements also address. I guess I'll cite these sections in particular since you don't seem to be understanding this. The template in question also violates WP:MOSICONS#Accompany flags with country names, but that's another matter for later correction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page in response to the same text, I'm not mistaken. The MOS clearly states under the "Appropriate use" that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In football squads, nationality of the players is a pertinent issue. I don't see how this can be overlooked. Number 57 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that you have a point about the country names, and I have supported adding the country trigrammes to the template. However, because some editors are not willing to compromise, agreement on that matter has never been reached. Number 57 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC) [Refactored in from User talk:SMcCandlish to stop forking the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)]
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Draw a Venn diagram[me] if you have to. "[W]hen the nationality of different subjects is pertinent" is in the "Appropriate use" section. Using flag icons (ever) as indicators of birth place is defined as not an appropriate use, in an entire section devoted to saying so. It cannot be an appropriate use, so it cannot be a "pertinent" appropriate use. This is really basic, incontrovertible logic. Your cat is either in the house or outside. Your bed is in the house. Your cat cannot possibly be on your bed if you know it's outside on the lawn. PS: It doesn't surprise me at all that "agreement has never been reached" on some insular template page WP:OWNed by a handful of people. This is another case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy being applicable. It does not matter whether some editors at that template don't want to comply with the "don't use flags alone" guideline; it's still a guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not mistaken, nor do I feel the need to italicise my text to emphasise it. The flags do not represent birth place, they represent sporting nationality. The two are of course related in most cases, but they are different things. Number 57 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No they are not representing "sporting nationality" (that would be the nation of the team they are playing for), they are representing their personal nationality (where they presently have their citizenship), which is expressly forbidden here. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes they are. There is no such thing as English or Welsh citizenship, but British footballers have one of four sporting nationalities (five if you count the Northern Irish who choose to represent the Republic). Number 57 13:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Tomato, Tomat-oh; I'm sure those with dual citizenships get to chose which nationality they want to be listed under when it comes to FIFA rules too. That's still nationality and a no-no for flag use. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Your response makes no sense. Sporting nationality and legal nationality are different issues, and there are several sporting nationalities that are not legal nationalities. The squad templates show sporting nationality. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. Number 57 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Still reads and sounds like "nationality" to me, even if we're talking for official FIFA rules about team make-up. That player is not representing that nation when they play on the FIFA teams, they are playing for the team, the team itself might be representing that nation as a whole. So this is a clear case where the flag use is disallowed. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not a "clear" case at all. Nationality is relevant to club football for a variety of reasons. But anyway, it's clear that you disagree, so let's just leave it at that rather than rehashing the same arguments as earlier in the year. Number 57 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Masem's analysis is clearly correct here. The argument that a players birth place or citizenship nationality "is relevant to club football" does nothing at all to address the fact that using flag icons to present this information is precisely what MOS:ICONS says not to do. That information, where it's actually helpful to include it can be added with the |note= parameter, without using distracting, misleading pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Number 57, when someone suggests you're mistaken and points out why, you cannot effectively refute that by simply re-asserting that you're not mistaken and ignoring the reasons just shown which demonstrate why you're mistaken. That's not a rational argument, it's just noise. (Your writing style choices are not germane here, either.) You seem to be suffering the same confusion as GiantSnowman was (briefly), below. No one is suggesting removal of the flag icons from the template, to prevent their being used to show FIFA sporting nationality. You've been editwarring against me to prevent the template documentation instructing people to only use the flag icons for FIFA sporting nationality and to not use/stop using them for citizenship, birthplace, residency and other categories of "nationality" that MOS:ICONS says to never use flag icons for. You directly reverted me three times in rapid, knee-jerk succession on this and re-imposed examples that blatantly advocate abuse of flag icons in the template to do precisely that. You need to stop. Your WP:ANEW case has already gotten your own self warned, and the diffs very clearly do not support you in this, nor does the /doc page wording in question, nor does the talk page history of that template going back 4 years, nor does MOS:ICON's own crystal-clear wording, nor does this discussion. Please stop thrashing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If you had pointed out why I was mistaken using convincing arguments, I would have accepted it, but you haven't. Your debating technique basically seems to be saying the same thing over and over again, with increasing levels of patronisation and dismissal, as well as making highly misleading or simply dishonest statements about past events. Unfortunately it seems that a rational debate with you is not possible, so I am not minded to respond to any further antagonisation. In the meantime, neutral editors are more than welcome to have a look at the edit history of the disputed documentation and draw their own conclusions as to who is causing problems here. Number 57 09:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's just conceding by running away. I've presented arguments in an orderly fashion. You declare they're too much for you, you avoid addressing them again and again, and here you flatly refuse to address them, clearly and in front of everyone, and seem even proud to be refusing to making your case. And on top of that you say they're not "convincing" arguments, without demonstrating how any them isn't convincing. I'm not "saying the same thing over and over again"; you simply haven't dispelled even one argument I've raised, so they're not going away. You clearly have no rebuttal to the substance of the points I'm raising, only personality-based complaints to make. Why is this discussion still open? Why did you petulantly take it to WP:ANEW, and then after it boomeranged on you, continue to press the matter at an admin's talk page? (See also WP:PARENT.) What does it take for you to drop the horse-beating stick?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also I don't know how you (SMcCandlish) can claim a discussion on the talk page of a MOS page is 'LOCALCONSENSUS'...I feel it's more the case that you don't like how the discussion went and so are choosing to ignore it. GiantSnowman 12:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how GiantSnowman can claim I made such a claim, when I said no such thing. I'm referring to WP:FOOTY participants editwarring on the mistaken basis that failure to change consensus in the long discussion above, to permit using flagicons for birthplace "nationality", means that there is somehow any lack of consensus or understanding that the guideline does in fact still deprecate doing so in no uncertain terms.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I won't re-hash the same arguments that we have gone through over and over, other than to say that a) nationality is very important in football and b) flags are very commonly used to display aforementioned nationality in RS. GiantSnowman 12:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I repeat the note at the top of the section: [This is not about removing flag icons from the template, but properly documenting that they should not be used to indicate birthplace or residence rather than sporting nationality.] Everything you're saying here appears to be arguing against the idea (which I haven't proposed) that flag icons can never be used in that template. In reality, if you'd actually read instead of just reacted, all I've been doing is clarifying what uses of flag icons in that template are and are not sanctioned by MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough - though it is still a change I (currently) oppose. It would be a better idea to tighten up the current wording ("Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality"), and it would have been an idea for you to go to WP:FOOTY before you tried to implement such a change. GiantSnowman 14:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no principle on WP by which information about how a template should/shouldn't be used per some guideline or policy must be suppressed because someone doesn't like the guideline/policy. I have tightened up the wording in question, but a) Number 57, et al., are simply ignoring it - they use the template routinely to insert flag icons to indicate citizenship, residency, and everything but sporting nationality under FIFA eligibility rules; and b) there's a |hidenote=y parameter to suppress display of this note anyway (while it was probably put there to avoid repeating the note when multiple tables are being used in succession, it's actually mostly being used to avoid MOS:ICONS compliance). Lastly, no, I do not need to go yet again to WT:FOOTY to seek consensus to make edits to template documentation so that it complies with a site-wide guideline or policy. Please see WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. See this template's own talk page archives. ::::Here's a key quote, from a football/soccer editor, at Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG (23 July 2010):

[D]iscussion on the rights and wrongs of whether we should have flags, and if so, whether they should be expanded, has been going on for years at WT:FOOTY. The consensus [there] has always been that we must represent nationality somehow. Apart from those whose attitude is "to hell with flag policy", there was also broad acknowledgement that ideally we needed to try to address the problem of non-MoS compliance. Therefore, that is exactly what we have tried to do here. There was no need to consult WP:FOOTY again; the correct process was to find a solution, see if it worked, and then discuss the way forward if for some reason it didn't.

This is important for three reasons: 1) It's shows that progress with guideline compliance has been blocked at this template alone for almost four years, and more broadly at this project for several more years before that. Resolution of this is very long overdue, perhaps even WP:RFARB-overdue. 2) Some members of the wikiproject consider that project itself to be forging its own consensus to always use flag icons, no matter what, despite the fact that we have a site-wide guideline to definitely not do that, obeyed by everyone else; this is an undeniable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem. A participant in that project is clearly observing that others at it have a "to hell with flag [guidelines]" attitude. 3) Even back in 2010, opponents of MOS compliance were using precisely the same "you haven't discussed this with WP:FOOTY and gotten our consensus to proceed" tactic. That 2010 quote from a WP:FOOTY editor trying to do the right thing is correct: "There [is] no need to consult WP:FOOTY again." We have a well-accepted, stable guideline (which its straggling detractors have failed to rend apart), we have obvious ways to improve the code and its documentation, and we have everyone's buy-in but a couple of editors today (presumably a few more might pop up from previous versions of this debate if they were prodded to do so, but they have not, even after being WP:CANVASSed at WT:FOOTY yesterday).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Your post is kinda TLDR; but I will re-iterate the point that if you want to change a template that is present on literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, it would be considered sensible/good practice/polite/whatever to try and discuss the changes with the relevant WikiProject first. GiantSnowman 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And I'll reiterate that you need to read and understand WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You clearly didn't actually read a thing I wrote, since all you did is repeat something I already addressed as an invalid argument as matter of clear policy. I'll say it again for you: A wikiproject is just a page at which misc. editors agree to collaborate, nothing more. It has no more authority of any kind than any other editor or group of editors. There is no question that the uses to which that template is being put violate this guideline. This entire huge debate above is about your and others' fait accompli decision to ignore MOS:ICONS in "your" articles. Almost all templates of any utility are used on "hundreds, if not thousands, of articles" or they would have been WP:TFD'd by now. This does not magically prevent us from editing them. WP:BOLD remains a policy. The wikiproject in question does not speak with one voice. None of them do, but this one in particular is a seething morass of disagreement about virtually everything. I've never seen a wikiproject fill up archive pages so fast. Far more importantly, even if the project spoke in unanimity (instead of it just being you and Number 57 and someone or other else pretending you speak for everyone there), that would not really mean anything relevant. The compliance of a template's documentation (and output) with this guideline has nothing at all to do with anything the wikiproject might decide on its own. If there's a corner convenience store in your neighborhood, whether that business has properly paid its sales taxes to the county is between the county and the business, and the determination doesn't require any input from people living in the neighborhood, even if they feel protective of the store. PS: I have to observe that you and Number 57 are engaging in the same pattern of "concession by running away". I present you with orderly arguments, and your response to them is simply to say they are too much for you ("TLDR", "wall of text", etc.), you don't read them, you address zero of the points they raise at all, and then just hope no one will notice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no concession. I have just concluded that it is not worth my time trying to reason with you here. Even if I responded to every single point and addressed the holes in your argument, I have no doubt I'd get another wall of text ignoring the points made and restating your identical position in another format. As I've stated on the Lord Roem talk page, I'm willing to engage in a mediated dispute where a third party will hopefully put a stop to WP:BLUDGEONing tactics. Number 57 16:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This was escalated by Number 57 an admin enforcement request against me at WP:ANEW, where it's already partially boomeranged.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This has now migrated to User talk:Lord Roem#WP:MOSICON and WP:FOOTY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_13&oldid=1137421296"