Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Encyclopaedic purpose

The WP:ICONDECORATION section uses confusing terminology that no longer not matches what Wikipedia articles and templates commonly do. The section prohibits "exclusively decorative" icons, but many icons are "purely decorative" in the WP:ALT#Purely decorative images sense, and there is nothing wrong with them. For example, "{{flag|France}}" generates " France", which contains the purely decorative icon of the French national flag. For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, that flag is not supposed ot (and does not) have a link, and nothing happens when you click on it, so it is purely decorative in the sense of WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. This sort of usage is quite common in Wikipedia; see, for example, Asia #Territories and regions, which uses {{flag}} and whose flags are all purely decorative in the WP:ALT sense. And yet, despite all this, WP:ICONDECORATION recommends against "exclusively decorative" images such as flag icons.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that WP:ALT uses the phrase "purely decorative" in the W3C sense (an image that conveys no extra useful info and that does nothing when you click on it), whereas WP:ICONDECORATION uses the phrase "exclusively decorative" to mean something somewhat different (an image that has no purpose and is put there only because it looks pretty). A template call like "{{flag|France}}" generates an icon that is purely decorative in the W3C sense, but is not "exclusively decorative" in the sense discussed above, because in long lists the flag is a useful visual cue even if it merely repeats adjacent text information.

With the above discussion in mind, I suggest changing the wording of the section to make it less confusing, as follows:

Do not solely decorate Encyclopaedic purpose
Shortcut

Icons should not be added for exclusively decorative purposes 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 a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout. Hence, aAvoid adding icons that do not provide additional information (for example, adding a country's flag next to its name may not provide extra information about the subject of the article). provide neither additional useful information nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

Eubulides (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathise with your basic point, I think you're adding your own confusions. The {{flag|France}} code can be exclusively decorative if used on its own. But if used as part of a list, it can have a useful navigational function, making 'France' stand out more instantly for someone looking for it, thereby making it not simply decorative. I think that the issue of 'what happens when you click on it' is not really relevant to the idea of decorativeness. Flags can be merely decorative regardless of whether they take you somewhere. Otherwise I generally agree although the phrase "cues for adjacent content" needs defining and the first sentence is missing a word.Cop 663 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "the phrase "cues for adjacent content" needs defining" I removed the "for adjacent content" so that it's just "visual cues"; is that better?
  • "the first sentence is missing a word" Thanks, fixed.
  • "I think that the issue of 'what happens when you click on it' is not really relevant to the idea of decorativeness." Unfortunately this use of the term "decorativeness" disagrees with the usage of the W3C, which uses the technical term "purely decorative" to describe images that (among other things) do nothing when you click on them. The WCAG 2.0 defines "pure decoration" to mean "serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information, and having no functionality", and one aspect of "having no functionality" is that nothing happens when you click on the image. Under this interpretation of "decorative", {{flag|France}} by definition cannot be purely decorative, because it generates " France" which has functionality, namely, a wikilink. It's better if this page uses terms like "decorative" and "decoration" consistently with standard terminology.
Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No further comment, so I installed the revised wording. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

I would appreciate any outside opinions to the use of a flagicon in the JPMorgan Chase infobox at Talk:JPMorgan Chase#Flagicon in infobox. I have tried to set up a discussion there but only receive a response from the other editor when I make an edit to the infobox. Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of flags for sportspeople

The issue of the Ulster Banner being used to represent the sporting nationality of people born in Northern Ireland needs clarification as the flag is seen by some as a sectarian flag and it's use is hotly disputed by opposing sides. The flag should only be used if the person has represented NI and that the governing body of that sport use the Ulster Banner or the flag should only be used when it is known that the person identifies as Northern Irish as people born in NI are entitled to Irish citizenship or British citizenship. I intend to make changes to the guideline but am bringing it up here first. BigDunc 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which sports are you disputing? Several sports have many reliable sources that use that flag for Northern Ireland teams or individual athletes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about the arbitrary use of the flag for a sports person just because they happen to be born in NI. Uncapped soccer players would be one as they are eligible to play for Republic of Ireland also and adding a divisive flag to their name is original research unless the player has made it known that they wish to play for NI. BigDunc 08:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I infer that you are specifically referring to the use of flags in Template:Football squad player to show the nationality of each player in a squad list on football team pages. I agree that this is problematic (not just for Northern Ireland, but for every nationality), as it ought to require a reliable source for the stated nationality. I'm not sure that expanding this guideline is needed; wouldn't WP:Reliable sources be sufficient? In any case, that template is used on more than 5000 pages, and many more pages have similar squad lists without using that template, so you'll probably need some consensus from WP:WikiProject Football to make such a dramatic change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag Incons in Infoboxes

There appears to be a movement to remove icons from company infoboxes. The flag will typically occur next to the city in which the ocmpany is headquartered. In some cases the headquarters will appear as a just the city or the city together with the country.

My personal opinion is that in the context of an infobox, inclusion of a single icon is not "icon decoration" is a positive. It does not put undue weight on the country and it is not purely decorative. It does give a visual cue often in a box with many data items. In many cases for company infoboxes, the flag will appear in the same infobox as the company logo and several other icons (red and green arrows, etc.). I understand that there is a problem with excessive use of flags and that there is a problem with decorations. However, a single flag to indicate the location of the company's headquarters adds value, is not putely decorative, and provides an important visual cue that if excluded is often difficult to pick up just looking at the text of the infobox.

I would propose that if there is a real, well-reasoned consensus on this topic then it needs to be specifically laid out in the actual MOS page. Right now I would say that there is no clear guideline on this topic. There are certain editors making changes as if there is very clear consensus and very clear instruction on the topic. Let's come to a conclusion and if there is real concensus add it to the MOS page. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You say there is a lot of info in infoboxes - I agree. So, you propose that a flag icon be used to distinguish the country name from the other data. By why single out the country data? What symbols would propose to, say, single out the founding year? Should that not have visual cue as well? Why be elitist? We wouldn't want people to any less confused that the four digits "1995" refers to a year than we would want people to be concerned that the 9 symbols in "Australia" refers to a country in the southern hemisphere (hence presumably your desire to see an Australian flag against the word "Australia"). What I am saying, why do we need a picture if we have text. Since when does text only limit our understanding of a very simple concept such as a country name? If you seriously thought that flags were needed against country names to aid the reader when there is lots of info, then you would be adding them in the main text where there is a lot more info than infoboxes. Merbabu (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all it is not like I have come up with some outlandish concept of including flags in infoboxes to signal the country in which the company is headquartered. Until late last year every company infobox had a flag in it next to its headquarters. About a year ago, I noticed the first push to remove them, followed by another push this past spring and then another one relatively recently. Your arguments as I understand them are:
  • We cannot create visual cues for every item in the infobox so we shouldn't have any. But we do put in other icons infoboxes including logos and red & green arrows. So we have clearly accepted that it is worthwhile to include items other than just pure text or else we would take all of that out. If there was a good, universally understood visual cue that told me when a company was founded or in what industry it operated, I would probably be in favor of using it but as far as I can imagine there isn't. On the contrary, there is a great visual cue associated with countries, which Wikipedia had used for a number of years.
  • On your second point, the entire idea of the infobox is to provide a shorthand for the reader of the entire article. Using small visual cues in that context is much more appropriate than as you suggest putting icons in the body of the text, which I am never in favor of doing.
When I consider the positives and negatives of including flag icons in infoboxes, I see a number of clear positives that have nothing to do with decoration and I really am hard pressed to find a negative. Is the reader distracted? misled? overwhelmed? I would really like someone to make the case for the negative impact / incompatibiliy with WP:MOS of the flagicon in the infobox. Otherwise, I would suggest that inclusion of the flags should become the standard.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Negatives? We have the written word - that is a visual cue is it not? They are redundant. If something is put in that is redundant, then that is a negative - not a neutral. Thus, if redundant, I can only surmise that "visual cues" is another word (OK, 2 words) for "decoration". Further, if the country is the only piece of info that gets an additional visual cue, then we are indeed putting "undue weight" on the country. As you allude to, people put flags in because they can - we seem to survive with having the majority of infobox entries represented by text. We make a lot of allowances for readers, but one thing we can assume without apology is that they can read.
And yes, the reason the decoration justification is flawed is because for many, including me, they are not decorative but detracting, even ugly.
How many positives did you say you "saw"? apart from the "visual cues" one --Merbabu (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's lay this out. There are really three options:

Headquarters Canada Toronto, Ontario

  • Wow a company based in canada, thanks for putting a visual cue in the infobox to indicate that to me.

Headquarters Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  • This is really much better. Now I can finally see all of the other items in the infobox without the intrusion of the maple leaf.

Headquarters Canada Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  • this is obviously too distracting for a mortal user to be able to navigate given the excessive redundancy of a flag and the name of the country.

I personally use the first option: flag and city. Very simply, if you click on an article for a firm based in Singapore, maybe you read through the infobox and identify the company as Singaporese but with a flag you certainly do. Just like the logos and the little arrows it is not essential - but it is useful to the reader. We all know Microsoft is based in the US but does everyone know LG Group is based in Korea. I do now that I saw the flag icon in the infobox. It is not jingoistic or putting undue weight on the country, it is not purely decorative, it is not redundant. It is informative and that is the only relevant point. This is not a copyright issue or a distraction issue - so what is the real issue that you and your fellow editors who hate these flags have? In reading the volumes of discussion that you had that never ended in consensus I still cannot figure out what the core negative issue is. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, using your preference for the first one - how about:
Headquarters Kiribati South Tarawa.
Helpful?
Hmmm - I would know that LG was based in (South) Korea others don't. "Everyone" knows that Barak Obama is the president of the United States, but what is the first sentence of his article? And while I know the South Korean flag, I do not know every country's flag, but I can read every country's name.
What's the "real issue" you ask? Still what I wrote above - not helpful to our understanding of the subject, redundant, a visual/ugly distraction to one element of the info box at the expense of the other, and in the case of Kiribati (and many others), one still needs the name of the country (ie, the universal and fail safe way to communicate a country). Do you actually know the flag of a country you don't know the name of? We're not colouring-in, we're writing an encyclopedia. The "visual cue" benefit is so marginal (if it even exists) that it's just not worth it - unless you think it looks cool.
Actually, not everyone knows that MS is in the US, or that Ontario is in Canada. In both cases, people would have to click on the flag icon to find out what country you meant. Sure, most people probably do recognise the US and Canadian flags, but do you know the Kiribati flag? Or the Kiwi flag - particularly when it's small in icon format and similar to the Oz flag. Oh, and is Perusahaan Gas Negara from Monaco or Indonesia?
I'm not sure why are you talking about copyright? --Merbabu (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I have never even heard of South Tarawa or Kiribati, having a flag there actually is great. I immediately picked up that you were not talking about a company in Kansas. I think that illustration is actually very helpful. If you want to include the country where it is not obvious: Kiribati South Tarawa, Kiribati I personally think that is a great compromise. And if you have an instance of Monaco Monaco that is very clear as isIndonesia Jakarta or Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia. Also I would point out how effective it has been using these flags in this discussion, whereas the text kind of gets lost in the fray. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As I have never even heard of South Tarawa or Kiribati, having a flag there actually is great. - I don't get it. If you don't know a country, how is having its flag (which you presumably also don't recognise) actually going to help you understand the company about which the article is written? Indeed, how is having the flag going to help you recognise a country you've never heard of? So, if you're suggesting the "obvious" countries have no country name, how are we going to define the obvious countries? I'm fairly well educated guy - well above the mean, but without testing myself, I'm guessing I could name maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the world's countries by their flags. But I would recognise all countries' written names. --Merbabu (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is they are not necessary nor fool-proof. Particularly when you start talking about the flags not just being alongside the written country name, but actually replacing the country name. I think the exceptions and "compromises" required in the above examples make it clear enough. One clearly has to state the country name (what proportion of people know the South Korean flag? Is that proportion bigger enough?) Thus, if one is stating the country name, then the flag is redundant. Those still supporting flags raise issues of "visual cues" but what looks pretty to them looks tacky to the rest of us. It is not true that there is little justification for their removal in the MOS. "Icons should not merely decorate". While that statement has admittedly been watered down, it's pretty clear. If the name is written there, the icon is decoration. We're not colouring-in, putting geraniums in window boxes, or graphic designers. We are writing an encyclopedia. --Merbabu (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement on the opposite page is what it is - and it is actually vague because there has not been consensus to make it stronger. "Icons should not merely decorate" is a very different threshold than - "avoid using icons whenever possible because they are a distraction and provide no value to the reader. Use text whenever possible.". You have your taste and I have mine - let's let the "rest of us" make up their own mind, particularly when countless editors who have been creating articles for years have used flag icons in infoboxes and a small group of editors have attempted to remove them all via this part of the MOS. Taste is all your argument comes down to, not redundancy and not confusion. And that is not the basis for decision making here.

Also - As there is currently no consistency about city format, I would leave that to the individual articles to make their own decision about whether information is being communicated properly. You didn't like Toronto, Ontario, fair enough. Sometimes you see New York City, Sometimes it is New York, NY or New York, New York, perhaps New York, United States (although that is odd to me). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Taste is all your argument comes down to, not redundancy and not confusion - please don't tell me what my argument is and isn't. Country flags are redundant in infoboxes on countries (company logos on company articles certainly aren't), and yes, using flags to replace country names is confusing amongst other things. And I too could say that "taste" is all that your argument is about - you like them for their decorative function as it's clear they don't have much other useful function. How is having a US or Kiribati flag next to the country name "informative" and relevant? In an article on those countries' flags of course a flag icon/picture is relevant, but we are talking about companies - we don't need to explain to readers a country's flag - but i agree that the company logo is important info. --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — I've made this statement many times before, but it bears repeating again. This type of flag icon usage, where a singular image is used for one infobox field, is undue weight for that specific field. Why should the "country of origin", "nationality", etc. of a company, person, band, etc. be highlighted with a colourful image over every other field in the infobox? Flag icons work best when they are used to find individual items in a long list or table, and where there is a strong national association with each item in that list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    Agree with Andrwsc. A flag of a single nation is appropriate for an article directly related to that nation, but is not appropriate for articles about companies, or penguin varieties, or whatever; in those cases they are a distraction that unnecessarily suggests flag-waving patriotism. Eubulides (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • First I find that the undue weight argument is faulty. WP:UNDUE reads "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published." I find nothing in there that relates to the bias someone would incur as a result of seeing a Portuguese flag in an article. Someone should please explain how the neutrality of the article is threatened by including something like this. Although trying to emphasize a country is somehow foreign could be considered undue weight, a simple 20px flag icon is hardly doing that. I am not suggesting a massive flag atop each article - that would be undue weight. A small item in an infobox is informative.
Additionally, it is rarely a singular image. Most articles already have other illustrations in the infobox, most notably the company logo. Many attach icons to financial metrics. Wouldn't your argument suggest that the name of the company is really sufficient and that financial figures do not need icons? To me, I actually find flag icons in long lists to be a jumbled mess and am surprised that people who would oppose one logo put in an infobox would support their repeated use in a list. But again these are taste arguments. Can you please provide a basis that should be binding on other users who may disagree with your aesthetic judgments?|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record I agree that flags in long lists are a "mess" and believe that country names serve the purpose better. However, perhaps what the editor above is trying to say is that flags in lists are better supported by the community than flags in infoboxes. --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I was the one whose flagicons removal started this thread, I thought I should comment here. I am glad a thread was started here because I thought it would have to be discussed on every single article like it was at Talk:JPMorgan Chase#Flagicon in infobox. In my opinion it is better and easier to read the name of the country than to click the flagicons to see what country is being represented. Some of the times these flagicons fail WP:ICONDECORATION and serve no encyclopedic function other than to decorate the infobox.

I have a problem with UrbanRenewal's actions not matching up to his comments here. He says that having a singular inclusion of a single icon is not "icon decoration" is a positive, and yet two of his reversions, [1] and [2], added numerous flagicons back into the infoboxes, which goes against his argument.

I also have a problem with his blatant canvassing of people he thought would agree with him about the discussion, but not me, the person whose edits started this discussion. Then I have a problem with him edit warring adding back the flagicons while the discussion was going on and complaining that was what Garion96 was doing or leaving edit summaries like "undoing, per discussion on MOS discussion page" which implies that the discussion here said they should be used, which is incorrect. Aspects (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we get to consensus?

I spent some time this morning looking through the history of this issue without consensus. Tere is a very ardent group of users who for the last 2+ years have fought hard to remove flag icons wherever possible and I respect that effort. There appears to be a more diffuse Includer Group consisting of different users who have gotten involved as they noticed the Removal Group's enforcement of this issue. I would like to suggest that for the Removal Group to proceed there should be real consensus based on real concerns around usage of flags. Can someone propose a way to arrive at a solution that everyone can buy into? I think a vote probably does not resolve the issue given the limited attention paid to this discussion but am open to all constructive solutions. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I truly believe the problem is with this MOS page itself. I appreciate the good-faith efforts of the editors who wrote this, but I think it went in the wrong direction. Instead of listing specific cases of where icons are "good" and "bad", it should have evolved into more of a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (images) document. I believe that all of the issues here can be expressed in terms of more general policies and guidelines (such as no original research, undue weight, neutral point of view, verifiability, accessibility, etc.) Perhaps the best way forward is to start over...?
I also disagree with your label of editors in the "Includer Group" or "Removal Group". I am the most active editor in maintenance work in WP:WikiProject Flag Template and have tens of thousands of flag-related edits—including both thousands of removals and thousands of additions. So what would you call me? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
From only this discussion there is consensus that this edit is incorrect flag usage. Garion96 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - I've been through the arguments too and I disagree with your blanket statements about opposing groups and their relative strengths. --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There can't be correct or incorrect flag usages. It's a matter of an opinion, nothing more or less.--Termer (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, a sufficiently large number of opinions in agreement with each other is what defines consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My real point is that even though you are very involved in this page, three or four dedicated and well-meaning editors on an obscure WP:MOS discussion page is really not sufficient to establish consensus to impose changes across hundreds or thousands of articles. You have very strong opinions on this subject given your efforts over a couple of years but this is not WP:CONSENSUS. There are fewer editors in this discussion than most AfD discussions I have been a part of. Further, any agreement you may come to is still based on your personal taste and subjective opinions rather than WP policies. Additionally, while I always assume good faith, some of the tactics employed are not consistent with best practices. Editors will remove a flag from an article and the edit summary says "Removed flagicon per WP:MOSICON" or "Removed flagicon per WP:ICONDECORATION" that gives you the appearance of authority which is more consistent with WP:BOLD than WP:CONSENSUS. The fact that you will revert edits and continue to remove flags in the middle of this discussion is very frustrating. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 10:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was who you started the conversation here seeking a response on the issue. Further, any agreement you may come to is still based on your personal taste and subjective opinions rather than WP policies. --Merbabu (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you used rollback to revert flag removals only a few minutes ago and that you are shouting in a discussion is even more frustrating. You simply don't have consensus. Garion96 (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS is not a policy, it's a guideline, and anybody removing any icons on Wikipedia is doing it only based on 'personal taste and subjective opinions', not on WP:Consensus since there never was any consensus on the question and never will be. because you can't have a consensus on a question that only involves 'personal taste and subjective opinions'.--Termer (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the same manner that the addition of flags is 'personal taste and subjective opinions'. Why is it that taste and opinion to remove is less valid (if that is what you are saying)? --Merbabu (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In a case like this, the onus is on those wishing to include or retain something to justify it. Unless that consensus can be demonstrated or achieved, these icons should not be added. --John (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving this discussion

I wanted to inform you that as a result of this discussion and the back and forth on this subject, my Rollback rights were removed by User:Garion96. I am in the process of trying to have these restored but the tone of this discussion, as has happened several times in the past in these discusions has become very negative, and has had consequences that I did not expect. I do not believe that this page has the sufficient consensus of the larger community to make such broad reaching edits and the attempts to be bold have resulted in a series of practices that should never be condoned and are more worrisome than the presence of flag icons in infoboxes. I will continue to include flag icons in articles in which I am involved until a real consensus is reached and consider the MOS to be suggestions rather than policy. This could have been a very constructive discussion but it has not ended that way. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So this discussion didn't really went the way you wanted it. Therefore you want to ignore consensus regarding this guideline and keep adding flags to infoboxes? Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Urbanrenewal's conclusion re: consensus: I would say more consensus could be found on the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents where it was generally agreed that you abused your authority as an admin to remove my rollback rights. On this page I have explained that you have failed to establish consensus. How?

1) Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

2) Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.

3) Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. If reasons are offered to support a position, but that position is opposed, then counter-reasons should be given or different conclusions should be explained; non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian.

So far what I see as consensus is User:Merbabu, User:Garion96, User:Andrwsc and Eubulides. I will even add in User:Aspects because I know he hates flags. But that is five editors. User:Termer and I have both seemed to be opposed to your efforts to legislated against flag usage. You just had a very similar argument with User:Oicumayberight in August. In almost every single previous discussion of this topic it is the same editors I listed above. So despite your insistence that you have consensus it is not like there is some overwhelming support for your side. I stated my case, you stated yours and there is no agreement. You do not have consensus to make sweeping changes to dozens / hundreds of articles with a link saying something like "Removed flag icon per WP:MOSICON." That implies consensus which does not exist. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(redacted true but out-of-place text) There is a longstanding and wide-ranging consensus that having flag icons in infoboxes is decorative, adds nothing but clutter, and unduly emphasizes nationality over other entries there. Thus we do not use them. You appear to be in a minority of one here trying to challenge a consensus. Rather than getting upset and reverting to your preferred form against consensus, why not assemble your strongest arguments here and try to convince us? So far I have never seen a cogent argument for using flags this way, but I am open to persuasion. Or, you could accept that the feeling is against your proposal and move on to something else. Either way, best wishes. --John (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we please leave this page to discussing the issue of flags? Please read and remember the topic of this page - Manual of Style. Urbanrenewal's rollback rights and garion's removal of them have no bearing on this discission about flags. It's already on ANI and a number of user pages. ---Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As for notions of consensus - it's clear to me that there is no consensus to add flags. If those in favour of flags are saying there is no consensus to remove, then logically they must also be saying there is no consensus to add either. Further, shouldn't there be consensus to include something? The default is not to leave it in the article.--Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I too made this point in the section above. --John (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Urbanrenewal's proposal

As I started here in good faith and good humor I am going to try to return us there. I agree that discussing my specific dispute with another user is not a good use of time. In the spirit of good faith, I will point out that I have never gone around to articles adding flags and I will not add them in existing article that did not historically have flag icons. Tpyically, I am interested in writng articles not debating the merits of flag use in articles. When I create an article, clean up an article, add an infobox, etc. I do typically put a flag icon in the infobox along with many other positive additions as I have since I joined WP. But I have never gone around to articles adding flags to articles that never had them - I had no agenda coming into this discussion. Since that time, my only "adding" has ever been in the context of undoing removals by editors involved with this page - there is a difference. To give some context, the first time I saw this discussion was in the context of JPMorgan Chase where I made very substantive contributions to the historical content. There was already a flag icon there when I got there. In that case as in almost every other, flags existed in the infobox for several months or years before they were removed by this project. The very fact that the editors involved with this project have all been so busy removing so many flag icons from infoboxes of many hundreds of articles indicates that I am not along and a broad group of users made the individual determination to include an infobox. This was not because they were aggressive pro-flaggers but because they thought it added a valuable visual cue and was consistent with Wikipedia policy. I still think in the absence of consensus that this is acceptable.

I would agree that on this page there is no consensus to actively go around adding flags but similarly there is no consensus to remove them and even if there were it would not necessarily be the same as WP:CONSENSUS. When I say that the few editors here don't have the oonsensus of the broader community I say so largely on the basis that so many editors added flag icons in infoboxes for so long before it was decided decided here to be WP:BOLD and remove them all. This is the specific situation described in WP:CONSENSUS where a group of focused editors decide to make decsisons for the larger community that maybe don't have larger buy-in.

So where does that leave us - in an AfD when there is no consnesus that would typically result in keeping the article. Hopefully, this results in other editors adding to that article and improving it. If major problems persist the issue can always be raised later in another AfD. I think that we are in a similar position, as much as you might not like that conclusion. So as a course of action I propose the following, which is really an argument for the status quo in the absence of consensus:

1) No active adding of flag icons to existing articles that never had flag icons until broad consensus can be achieved
2) No active removal of flag icons to existing articles that either have or had flag icons until broad consensus can be achieved
3) Flags in new articles or infoboxes to be left to the individual editor
4) Discuss any historical flag removal on the talk pages of the individual pages to involve the editors involved with those pages (And two or three members of this project adding their comments should not count or be presented as consensus)
5) Restore flag icons to articles where they existed prior to June 30, 2009

I am open to suggestions or issues. I would point out that the best way to establish consensus is to proceed over a longer period of time. I personally think that in the longer term WP has a precedent of using these flags. If you focus on the bigger issues of excessive flag / icon overuse I think you will not only have my buy-in but a broader consensus. The problem has only come up when this effort has been taken to what I believe is an extreme view that flag icons anywhere are excessive and decorative. There I don't agree and the many editors who created articles and infoboxes with flagicons in them would probably disagree as well. I know when flags are removed, other editors involved with the article often add back the flags on individual pages, despite the fact that in the edit summaries this MOS is presented as official policy. I think in the absence of real consensus today on this particular issue of flags in infoboxes, let's see how other editors respond to flag icons over the next few weeks / months. There is no rush. If they are either removed or added back slowly by different groups of editors uninvolved with this project I think that will be an important sign. I would hope this might be an acceptable compromise for the time being. That will give you an opportunity to focus on areas of flag abuse and inconsistency in application. I am very supportive of that part of your efforts.

Can this form the basis of a good faith effort to build consensus? If anything, I hope that I am successful in reshaping the tone of this discussion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Termer. This is all about personal taste. This guide is more often than not used as a false badge of authority to remove flags. But this guide has no authority. It's not even policy. And as a guide, it sucks at actually guiding an editor objectively and constructively. It was expanded and edited with strongly biased language by like-minded users who either lack-pictorial literacy or are just pretending not to know, an uncivil practice which was listed as Feigned incomprehension "playing dumb"[3] in the WP:CIV until it was recently removed as a matter of judgment. Ironically, it's judgment that we are talking about, and this guide doesn't help much.
The question isn't whether or not the flags decorate, because decoration is not the problem. There is no proof that the flags are distracting other than a few users claiming that they are distracting. As for user claims, I can claim that the flags do provide additional information. If I see a flag that I recognize, I know which country it represents faster than I can read the word. If I see a flag that I don't recognize, I know it's not from a country that I'm familiar with, which makes me curious about the less popular country at a glance. Either way, it's additional information. Heck, I just might be curious about what a particular countries flag looks like. How nice that I don't have to leave that article to find out.
So don't be discourage by this false badge. It's supported by a weak consensus of users, but has a sufficient opposition that is well documented. At any given time, the bad practice of straw polling may make it seem like it's only one or two users who oppose this guide. But the numerous archives reveal the contrary. It's just that the proponents of this guide stick together and watch it like a hawk to quickly squelch any opposition because they know that the language of the guide can't stand up on its own. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is just personal taste, why is yours more important? And please cease your long-standing argument that those opposed to you have no "pictorial literacy" (and similar from previous discussions) - or that somehow you are more qualified to judged graphical questions. It's irrelevant, likely said in ignorant error, and just rude thus stymying discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. That's a strawman argument. I never said nor implied that my personal taste was superior. I rarely even reveal my personal taste regarding images because my career has taught me not to rely on the subjective. I try to keep my arguments objective.
  2. The lack of pictorial literacy (or unwillingness to admit knowledge of additional pictorial meaning) is a relevant fact in this discussion. If one intends to make a claim that an image is meaningless or provides no additional information, they must prove the negative or use themselves as the example by admitting that they don't see any meaning. It's neither rude nor insulting to point out the implication of ones own admission or omission. It has nothing to do with "those who oppose me." It has everything to do with users who claim that they don't see pictorial meaning or additional information despite the fact that other users do. If I told you that I didn't comprehend your last verbal reply, I would be admitting my own lack of verbal literacy. The alternative would be saying that your words were meaningless simply because I don't understand them. The same principle applies to pictures.
  3. On the contrary, all it takes is one person to see meaning (even if no meaning was intended) to prove that there is additional information provided by a particular image. The "meaningless image" claim is more difficult to prove than the "distracting image" claim. At least the "distracting image" claim (as subjective as it is) remains a possible truth even when the image is also considered informative by one or more users.
  4. If you are tired of hearing me argue a particular point, then stop avoiding the point and address it (or concede validity) instead of making subtle ad hominem arguments about my mannerism.
Oicumayberight (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys please let's stay on point. I think the question is how does Wikipedia ajudicate two differing opinions on matters of taste since I think both sides have failed to make a compelling argument that convinces the other and neither side has consensus? Is my proposal above something you are willing to live with for now? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree to your proposal. It reads like an arbitration case where our side has broad restrictions put on it, while your side has basically no restrictions. I think there has been consensus found to have no flagicons in company infoboxes since your side has basically said it is a matter of taste while not being able to effectively counter our arguments. I find a lot of your talk here to be sour grapes. You did not like the consensus found on JP Morgan Chase, so you decided to bring your case here. When you did not like the consensus found here, you said you were leaving the discussion. But then a day later you were back with your proposal.
Your points are overly broad to include all flagicons when this discussion was just about their use in company infoboxes. You seem to pick an arbitrary date of June 30, 2009 simply so you can add a flagicon back to the JPMorgan Chase infobox despite the consensus found on the talk page there.
Since you feel there is no consensus to add flagicons to infoboxes, why should you be able to add them back and/or add them to new articles/infoboxes? If you had truly felt there was no consensus either way, your status quo option should have been to leave everything the way it is now with absolutely no adding or removing of flagicons.
You seem to have ownership issues with these company articles. You seem to feel only people who work on them should be able to edit them in any way. This is not how Wikipedia works in general and not how it works in Manual of Style issues specifically. You want to take away our ability to resolve MoS issues and then not be able to discuss then issue on the talk page if it is brought up there. With this edit, [4], your ownership of this article comes through, saying Merbabu should respect your "consensus," because you were the only editor of the new article, when it should be seen as WP:BRD, where your reverted his reversion without an attempt to discuss the issue.
Since we have a discussion here, it is now counter productive to individually discuss each flagicon in each company on their own individual talk page. Yet your next edit after adding your proposal here, [5], you feel there should be no flag debate brought to this article. Throughout this debate I have found some of your actions to not be in line with what you are saying, therefore it is hard for me to believe what you write. Aspects (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies - this is a long response:
Sorry can you please outline the real arguments you have based on WP policies that you are using to bolster your case. My line of argument is the following:
  • Flag icons provide valuable visual cues to the reader that are more difficult to perceive from text alone. This provides the primary motivation for including flags in articles and an explanation for why they have historically been so widely used. The purpose of an infobox is to convey information quickly and flag icons help accomplish this objective.
  • Historically on WP, flag icons were widely used in company infoboxes to indicate the country in which a company's headquarters are located. This shows a very broad, longstanding consensus from widely disparate parts of the WP community that this is appropriate. If you even trace back to old versions of this project page the text "Flag icons are intended for use in lists, tables, and infoboxes" was a prominent part of the original MOS.
  • There are a number of images and icons typically included in an infobox so it is difficult to assert undue weight with the inclusion of another graphical item in the infobox
  • When limited to the infobox the use of a small flag does not decorate an article, particularly when most company infoboxes are intended to include at least one if not more than one image. Additionally, this does not distract from the reader's ability to read the text in any way. While I am not one to promote decoration - I think the presumption of the editors involved with this project is that all flags are decoration and that is also not consistent with precedent. Nor is it consistent that all "decorative" items are forbidden even if one were to concede for the moment that they are decorative (compare to military insignia which could easily be described textually but are typically presented graphically for ease of use).
  • The permissibility of using flag icons in articles is not disputed as a matter of principle as it is acceptable (according to this MOS) to use flags in many contexts.
I just don't see your arguments clearly laid out it in the above discussion. I see the redundancy argument and i see the decoration article. Both of these we have provided counterarguments for. I see far more assertions that you have consensus or that there are sour grapes or other accusations. I think the arguments grounded in WP policy are more on the side of keeping the image. I have yet to hear how when flags are allowed in lists and in so many other contexts that a single flag in an infobox to provide a clear visual identification of a company's home country is not permissible. This is the arbitrary determination of a small group of like-minded editors that are imposing that view in direct contravention to WP:CONSENSUS.
As far as your question about the one-sided nature of the proposal I would argue it is actually very balanced. "Your side" as you put it is the one forcing the issue so it may seem like you have restrictions. Whenever there is a case of aggression, in order to restore the status quo, there must be restrictions on the agressor. On the other side I have never gone through flagless articles and started adding flags (mostly because they were there already) - I have only in a limited number of cases undone edits by members of this project. I was perfectly content with the status quo until "your side" initiated its recent removal effort. Without this discussion you would likely have removed many more flags by this point. I personally think a rollback to the end of June would provide more context to this discussion and show just how many articles, created by so many different editors have employed flag icons in just this spot to great success. Since you have made so many edits in recent weeks, just stopping now does not bring us back to where we were before your recent removal push. That is the only reason why I picked an arbitrary rollback date. If I proposed December 31, 2008 the number of flags repopulating articles would be even more significant.
With respect to new articles such as The Phoenix Companies, there is a very clear choice in writing a new article - will there be a flag or not. Since I created the article and there is no consensus on flag icons in infobxes I added it. I think this is perfectly natural - had I not added it I would have been in effect agreeing that my new article should not be allowed to have a flag. At the rate I create articles you could undo a month's worth of work in a few minutes. With your edits there are so voluminous and difficult to track it would take considerable effort to undo should that be the consensus of the community. In fact the inertia factor appears to be one of your prime moda opperandi. In the specific case of the Phoenix Companies I worked for a while to create the article with no thought of this discussion. WHat I found particularly unnecessary was that I created the article and then within 12 hours, Merbabu had already swooped in to remove the flag icon (and there was no discussion on his part). Really, why was that necessary - it appears more that he was focusing in on articles I was creating. I think that was at the very least an aggressive move and I did undo his edit. I was being a little funny about not having consensus given I was the only editor who had bothered to write the article. But that is not ownership - people change articles I write all of the time - I actively seek it and encourage it.
As far as your "consensus" in the JPMorgan Chase article the only contributors were you, Andrwsc and Eubulides who are all members of this project. A closely coordinated group of editors from one project showing up at an article (as I pointed out on the JPM talk page) to say the same thing you are saying here is no more consensus than you have here.
I have no ownership issues I just don't like seeing a small group of editors making radical changes without discussion across a range of articles. If you don't like my proposal - instead of adding more fuel to this fire, can you please come up with a proposal of your own? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Me, yawning (after all, this is one of the most boooring discussions ever on WP)...did I remember to mention that I do like icons (including flagicons) because those represent visual communication/Graphic communication and are educational. I've learned many things about different countries by simply clicking on flagicons on wikipedia, and I hope so have many other users. But since the icons keep disappearing from wikipedia for some reason, And WP looks more and more like DOS instead of MacOS, I guess I'll just buy a book instead of reading WP.--Termer (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, WP:TLDR. But as for your five points in bold several screens ago, I would not agree to that. I don't think the right way to build consensus is to impose "articles lockdowns" to preserve the (inconsistent) status quo. Instead, I would propose individual consensus building discussions for specific infoboxes. Start with Template talk:Infobox company to see if singular flag icons for the "Headquarters" field (location_country parameter) are preferred or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Emblems in infoboxes

Why is it that emblems are not to be used in infoboxes when no other image is available? I understand that it says it in the Manual of Style, but there is no justification given. As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, rules should be accompanied by reasons. Thanks. :) Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Icons without supporting text - input required

There is a discussion at WT:FOOTY#National Team World Cup Tables about the use of icons without accompanying text, and readers of this page may have useful input to offer there. To be clear, the question isn't simply whether to include the flags, but whether they should be included without explanatory text. Knepflerle (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some element of explanatory text when {{flagicon}} is used, as the alt attribute for the image is the link to the country (e.g. mouse over Brazil or click on the image to see what I mean). But since space is a premium in those tables, two alternatives would be {{flag|BRA}} to produce  BRA (using the country code instead of full country name) or even {{cc3|BRA}} to produce (BRA) for the code without a flag. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Nazi flag for sports person nationality

Hi, at List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions I removed a "Nazi" parameter which made the German flag template display a Nazi Party flag next to several Nazi-era champions. In fact the Nazi flag was the national flag of Germany in this period, which makes using it to represent nationality in this way highly problematic. I'd say a standard German flag icon is less problematic than (a) confusing the average reader, who doesn't know the "official flag" use; (b) implying the person identified is a Nazi, rather than a German sportsperson from the Nazi era. Rd232 talk 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, but much more messily, we could find some way to explain the situation in contexts where the flag is used and confusion is likely. Rd232 talk 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Problem is that now flags on that page are being used inconsistently. The old Spanish flag is present there, different from the current one, as is the case with the Egyptian flag. This shouldn't just be about the Nazi emblem, as we are not censored, it needs to be about the use of flags which take into account the era. The use of such flags is common across hundreds, possibly thousands of sporting articles, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate this goes beyond one article, that's why were here and not on the article talk page. And my arguments have nothing to do with censorship, so your reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is a red herring. Similarly, the reference to slight variations in national flags is a red herring, this isn't going to confuse anybody. And again, this is the only case I'm aware of where a national flag is the flag of a political party, which creates the issue (b) I cited above. Rd232 talk 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No no, no red herrings at all. Have you seen the difference in the Egyptian flags? That certainly would confuse people. Besides, the old German flag links to Germany, not Nazi, doesn't it? It doesn't matter if it was a political party, that itself is a red herring. The fact is that the national flag of Germany for a period included a swastika. If you wish to remove that and use the modern-day flag then I don't see a good argument for keeping any of the historical flags in any articles which use them. If the editor had complained about the use of the swastika in Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics, I don't think many people would have rushed out and removed the correct (per date context) flag and replaced it with that of the unified, modern-day German flag. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The flags used in these tables should be the flags used by the sportsmen/women at the time of the competition in question. The swastika flag was the German flag at the time, and it would be been displayed at these championship tournaments. The wikipedia article should merely reflect that, thus I will revert your edit. What is needed in the Wikipedia namespace would be some sort of register of which flags were used in what year, at least from 1900 onwards, in order to simplify the process. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec×2) It has been a very long-standing consensus that the contemporary flag should be used for historical references, and not the current flag of a nation. (See the "Historical considerations" section.) The classic example for the Nazi flag is the 1936 Olympics, where the flag itself was a prominently used propoganda symbol at the Games, so our pages about that sport event also use that image to represent German teams and athletes. It would be rather inappropriate to do otherwise. So why should other sports results from that era be treated differently? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to address my points A and B? Rd232 talk 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say what flags an "average" reader would recognize or not? Should we stop using the flag of Chad because it looks like the (possibly) more well-known flag of Romania? How about the flag of Côte d'Ivoire? And as for b), it was the national flag at the time. Every German medalist at the Berlin Games stood on a podium while that flag was raised. It is immaterial if they were all Nazi party supporters (or likely not). The connection is between the flag and the nation, not between the flag and a political party. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Who's to say what flags an "average" reader would recognize or not?" - well, the average reader, for one (eg [6]). As for your remarks about the Chad flag, you're being very facetious (well done there). For the rest, you're missing the point: to readers who recognise the flag as the Nazi flag, (most of them, I'll bet, and I'd be happy to do an RFC to a wider audience than flagnuts on that), it is going to be confusing and carry unwarranted implications. Maybe replacing it with a different flag is too problematic - I recognise that; but the communication problem in using the Nazi flag in this way is clear, and something should be done about it. Rd232 talk 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well I will try. I think they have been answered actually bit I will attempt ot spell it out.
  • (a) confusing the average reader, who doesn't know the "official flag" use.
  • I am not sure what you think is confusing about using the flag in use at the time. Using a flag that was only created in 1949 would be confusing. I don't think you should attempt to decide what is and isn't confusing. Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible it is an encyclopedia, not something bowdlerised and edited to suit what you as an editor precive as the opinions of otehrs.
  • (b) implying the person identified is a Nazi, rather than a German sportsperson from the Nazi era.
  • Once again you have decided what some other mythical person, "the reader", will think. German sportspersons from the time that Nazis ran Germany used the Nazi emblem when representing their country as images of the time show. Check out Leni Riefenstahl's films. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your response adds anything beyond an insinuation that I want things to "suit" me (yes, that's why I'm discussing the issue... er.). Beyond that, consider the average reader's response here, and my reaction to it, which was to agree that it was inappropriate - because I'd forgotten (if I ever knew) that the Nazi flag was the official flag. And I say that as native German speaker, from which you can draw your own conclusions as to whether I should know that. Rd232 talk 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The remarks about the Chad flag and, indeed, my own about the very confusing and very different Egyptian flags are valid. If part of your argument is to suggest "the average reader" cannot recognise historical flags, are you advocating that we remove all historical flags? Or was it simply the swastika that was the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@rd232: My point about Chad above was not be be facetious, but to point out that "confusion" is possible for a variety of reasons. We can either avoid all problems by removing flags altogether, or we can be as accurate as possible and give links for the reader to dig deeper and learn more. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think removing historical flags is worth considering, because the purpose of the flag icon is (in this sports context at least) to communicate nationality, not "what the official flag at the time was", so the most recognised signifier of nationality should be used, which will generally be a recent flag. Obviously where the existence or continuity of countries and hence of nationalities is an issue, a historical flag may be the most appropriate, but generally, I'd go with the one which has most recognition whilst being tolerably correct, over the historical one. (Or, heck, maybe both. Or at least flag+textual description.) Rd232 talk 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the national flag of the time should be used, but perhaps MOS:FLAG#Accompany_flags_with_country_names is relevant as it lessons the immediate Nazi connotations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not just historical flags. I expect that a typical Wikipedia reader will know only a few flags (their own country, maybe its neighbors, the flags of a handful of global powers, and that's it). It's unrealistic to expect that a reader will know a sportsperson's nationality merely from a flag icon, as there's substantial probability that the reader won't know. I agree that flags should normally be accompanied by country names (this doesn't have to be every instance; there could be a legend near the table, for example). Eubulides (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't said so explicitly, because I thought it was obvious: there's a difference between a reader not recognising a flag, and wanting to look for information to clarify, and misrecognising a flag, and being given no obvious information to clarify that. Rambo's Revenge's solution seems the most plausible; how would this work for List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions though, being clear and prominent without mucking up the list? A legend, on such a large article, isn't going to help much. Rd232 talk 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That article is very space-constrained (at least in the main table), so if flag icons are deemed to be inferior to other solutions, then perhaps the use of {{cc3}} might help. For example, {{cc3|GER}} produces (GER), with a link to the nation article from the familiar three-letter country code used in tennis. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like the best solution in this case. Rd232 talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is. And this should not be a mandate to sweep the entire Wikipedia clear of the historically accurate swastika-based flag. Even clicking on the historical flag takes you to Germany. If you remove that flag, you ought to remove any other flags that may confuse our average reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Who said anything about that? This NOTCENSORED bullshit is starting to hack me off. The issue is clarity of communication, in this particular article, but also in similar articles where such icon usage may cause similar problems. I've suggested some alternatives above, including adding text. Rd232 talk 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, who mentioned notcensored? I said we should use historically accurate flags. Your use of "bullshit" is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned "we are not censored" in your initial response in the thread, and your remark "sweep the entire Wikipedia clear of the historically accurate swastika-based flag" is hard to interpret as not being a reference to that. Rd232 talk 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well isn't that what you want to do? Remove an accurate depiction of the flag (and, by the sounds of things other historically accurate flags)? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No, as I've said quite clearly, what I want to do is communicate clearly. That may be achievable with or without a historical or contemporary flag, eg by adding text. I have no interest in removing the flag per se. Rd232 talk 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You know if you click on the flag you don't understand, you get taken to the country the flag represents, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, though I'm not sure how obvious that is. At any rate, it's the non-recognition vs misrecognition thing again. If you misrecognise, you're much less likely to click for further information, because you think you know. Rd232 talk 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't underestimate 'average readers'. If a reader is able to identify the swastika flag, there's quite a great chance that he/she would know that it was in fact the national flag of Germany at the time. To assume that a majority of readers would associate the flag primarily with the NSDAP, and not the NS German state, is to me a misconception. --Soman (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A beer says an RFC would prove you wrong. Rd232 talk 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important to use the correct flag for the period that is covered. Many ship articles use different flags than the current one, and civil naval flags may look vastly different to their country flags. By using these the reader may learn something new.
With the ship articles display of country names is not desirable, so the flag is displayed without it, but in such a way that it links to the country by using the {{flagicon}} template. (do you know which countries the above flags represent? Click on the flag for the answer).
It seems that a good idea would be to create an article which lists each country and which flag was used for which period of time, as historic flags in some cases are completely different from that in use today. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
? How does the use of flags in ship article infoboxes have any relevance to the subject under discussion? A ship article (on a single ship) can amply clarify in the text, if the infobox isn't clear enough. Sticking the flag icon in a list article is a wholly different communication issue. And as noted, the aim of the icons in the latter usage is precisely not to inform readers about flags (historical or otherwise), but rather to communicate nationality!! Rd232 talk 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As it was the use of the "Nazi flag" which was brought up in the first place, see SS Uhenfels. Although her port of registry did not change, the official flag did, and both the correct civil ensign and Nazi flag are used in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what Flag of Germany does (well, for Germany, at least)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
For Germany, yes. What I'm suggesting is an article (series of articles by continent?) covering all countries and their historic flags. This may need discussion elsewhere to achieve a wider audience. Any suggestions on a more suitable venue? Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I think the whole topic needs a community-wide debate. Launching an RFC would be a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would. There can be a strong selection bias in small corners of Wikipedia deciding these things, and an RFC helps mitigate that. Rd232 talk 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't think you would need an RFC just to start an article. Just put some notes on the relevant wikiprojects and then get typing. (I'd definitely be willing to contribute to it, by the way.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note on the use of the "European Union" flag

In the section "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance", it is written: "For instance, the flag of the European Union, is appropriately used on articles related to the European Union. However, the European Union flag should generally not be used alongside a national flag in articles about residents of EU member states; it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting."

I agree with this recommendation though it is inaccurate to define the flag of Europe restrictively as the "European Union flag". The EU adopted a flag which was created for the Council of Europe and represents, in some occasions, like some sporting events, Europe, beyond the strict borders of the EU. It is for instance used by the European team in the Ryder Cup. As stated on the Wikipedia page Flag of Europe (note that it is not "Flag of the EU"): "Despite it being the flag of two separate organisations, it is often more associated with the EU due to the EU's higher profile and heavy usage of the emblem. The flag has also been used to represent Europe in sporting events and as a pro-democracy banner outside the Union."

I think that the present recommendation is too strict and I would suggest: "For instance, the Flag of Europe, is appropriately used on articles related to the European Union, the Council of Europe and other situations like sporting events where this flag can be used to represent Europe. However, the European flag should generally not be used alongside a national flag in articles about residents of EU member states; it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting." Gpeilon (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More Flag Discussions - Television Infoboxes

A discussion is on-going at Template talk:Infobox Television#Flags regarding the removal of flag icons from Television infoboxes. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking a balance between understanding and emphasis

This is related to the icons without supporting text discussion above, coupled with a recent related discussion at FAC. The FAC in question is Seattle Sounders FC, which I haven't linked to because I do not consider that to be the appropriate place for wider discussion. All I will say on that specific matter is that there is implied (but most certainly not explicit) consensus that the flags in Template:Football squad player are appropriate, insofar as thousands of articles use the template, and there is no consensus to change the template itself.

I think the discussion at WP:FOOTY is too specific. There is nothing wrong with asking "how can we get this table or that table to comply with policy/guidelines?", but it is only logical to do so when there is clear understanding of why the guideline exists, and a clear consensus that this is right.

I think the Accompany flags with country names section needs to be considered on a broad level. I question why we have this at all. It is not an accessibility issue, as color blind readers are able to view the alternative text as Andrwsc has described in the previous section. Careful consideration should be given to those not familiar with the flags (and presumably that is why this policy is in place), but they have the same option. On the other hand, complying with this guideline draws even more attention to flags (EDIT:or nationalities) while a significant minority of people (if indeed they are a minority, I'm merely assuming) would prefer not to see these flags (EDIT:or nationalities) at all.

As I understand it, this guideline "mandates" that a flag should either not be used at all, or should be used in this form on at least the first occasion (in practise the first table):

{{flag|Earth}}

In summary, what is the appropriate balance between making it as easy as possible for information to be coveyed, while placing as little undue emphasis as possible on the nationality? My feeling is that if strictly enforced, this part of the guideline errs too far on the placing emphasis side, without a compelling enough justification for doing so. And if there is more than the occasional exception (football squad player links to ~5000 articles, and it is by no means an exceptional case, merely one of the most prominent ones), perhaps the guideline itself needs a bit of rewording, to explain when it is and isn't appropriate? WFCforLife (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? WFCforLife (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Andrwsc's remarks in #Icons without supporting text - input required support the idea that a typical English Wikipedia reader, who probably doesn't know that Brazil is the flag of Brazil, can mouse over the flag to see the title text "Brazil". (A visually impaired reader will hear the alt text instead, which is also "Brazil".)
  • There is an important problem with that analysis, though: there is no requirement that browsers for the sighted must show them the title text, and it's quite common to show the image without displaying either alt text or title text. For example, if you print this page, the alt text and title text both vanish, and all you'll see is the flag, which most readers won't recognize. (I just now verified this by converting this talk page to PDF with the "Download as PDF" button in the left margin.)
  • For this reason, the guideline's suggestion is a good one: the first use of a flag should explain what the flag means. That way, the page will still make sense when it's printed, or when it's visited with a browser that ignores title text.
Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. You are indeed correct about the printed form, although my understanding was that we were building an online encyclopaedia accessible to all. "Online" can take a variety of forms, and should cater to those with little to no knowledge of the subject, those without the ability to view images for whatever reason, the colourblind, and should make every effort to reach out to those with older computers and dial-up or similar speed connections.

If it can be proven that I am wrong about browser compatibility, then I would reluctantly have to conceed that the guide may well be right. But while I aware of for instance Wikipedia 1.0, I wasn't aware that wikipedia is supposed to be available offline without any modification whatsoever. If it were, I would question the benefit of wikilinks; if an offline user isn't familiar with one otherwise wikilinked term, it would render the entire printed article useless. WFCforLife (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarify context

A recent edit changed a section header from "Accompany flags with country names" to "In a list, accompany flags with country names", using the edit summary "Clarify context". First, the new section header does not accurately reflect what the section says. Second, I looked at the section's wording:

"When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags."

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) installed the wording about "list or a table" in this 2007 edit, as a result of a series of discussions summarized in Wikipedia talk:Use of flags in articles/Archive 2#"Consensus by force" won't work; compromise needed. In rereading those discussions, I discovered that the current text does not capture that consensus well. As I understand it, the idea was that the first time a reader sees a flag, there should be adjacent text specifying the country, and that if a flag appears in widely separate parts of the article, an editor shouldn't assume that the reader seeing one instance of the flag can remember an earlier instance many screens ago. But the current wording narrows this too much: it talks only about lists or tables, whereas the idea that we're trying to capture is independent of whether the flag is used in a list or table. So I propose that we change the text to this:

"The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name."

and leave the section header alone. In the meantime while we're discussing this, I reverted the edit. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any big objection right off the bat. However, my understanding of how this guideline has evolved (largely in my absence after the first 6 months since I drafted the first potentially-viable version of it) is that flags and similar icons should never be used inr regular prose at all, meaning that their only legitimate use is in lists and tables to begin with (and only under certain circumstances even then). So a) The wording specificity in the section is, in a technical sense, kind of redundant, but b) I don't think it hurts in any way at all to keep reinforcing that if a flag is used, it should be used only in lists or tables. All that said, I have to recant my assertion that flags should always be used with country names in tables, as their most common use in tables is in sports and similar stats tables to replace something like "United States" or "Republic of Ireland" with either just a flag or something otherwise short, such as "USA [flagicon]" and "ROI [flagicon]". I'm sure there are prescriptivists in here (and I guess from the 2007 edit of mine in question, I must have been one at least in part) who would rather this were not the case, but the obvious and widely observable, actual, in-real-world-practice fact is that the consensus Wikipedia-wide is to permit such uses. I think lists are another matter entirely. There is no page width restriction issue - list content wraps when wider than browser width, tables do not. Tables get special dispensation here, lists don't deserve it. So, that's my dos centavos, two years later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the logical compromise would be to suggest a key at the top or bottom of sections/articles where {{flagicon|Earth}} alone is used? There are times where nationality is clearly relevant, and use of {{flagicon|Earth}} is the only option. The way the guideline currently stands, there is a valid argument for ignoring it in such cases. My proposal is therefore that in lists, {{flag|Earth}} is always used, as if nationality is important enough to mention, it's important enough to expand. In tables, {{flag|Earth}} is desirable on at least the first appearance of a flag, but where this is not possible or appropriate a key should used in lieu of it. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please show me an example of where we use flags only? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Arsenal F.C. is an example of a featured article using Template:Football Squad Player. There are a couple of dozen of others (and around 5,000 articles in total). Whether those flags in the infobox should be there is another discussion, but there is broad consensus to keep player flags, indeed this is acknowledged in the sporting nationality section here. WFCforLife (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia readers won't recognize all those flags in Arsenal F.C. #Players, and so that section needs a legend or table or something that explains which flag belong to which country. As things stand, sections like that may be intelligible to football cognoscenti, who are versed in player nationalities and flags, and that may be why there's consensus among editors who edit that particular type of article; but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be for the general audience not just for European football fans, and the general audience cannot be expected to see a random flag and know what it stands for. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Intimate knowledge of flags extends beyond merely football, but I basically agree. I believe the best way to achieve compliance from groups of editors such as football fans would be to add a bit of flexibility into this guideline. The more flexible a guideline is, the less reasonable it is to dismiss it out of hand.
At the moment, WP:MOSFLAG requires the use of  Wales on the first occurance. In some circumstances the strict interpretation of this guideline can reasonably be dismissed as getting in the way of improving the encyclopaedia (where Wales is used instead). In others, such as the squad template used in Arsenal F.C., having a key immediately after is certainly not unreasonable, as a way of adding less emphasis. If there were provision for this sort of thing, I can't think of any circumstances where there's a reasonable excuse to ignore the guideline. Ultimate result: every flag is explained somewhere in that article, with no conceivable excuses. At the moment, there are several. WFCforLife (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Arsenal F.C. and other pages using that infobox: I'd object to the use of flags to identify owners, managers, etc., as they are assertions of nationality, citizenship, or something (the reader will not be able to discern which). I.e., its an ambiguity and irritation of precisely the sort this guideline was created to address. As for the player tables at the bottom of the page, I'm a bit more neutral. Not entirely, though. I can't think of any reason that country names should not be used there and flags dropped, as the tables are not wide enough to require such visual abbreviation. On the other hand, I would not object to a flag (with country name, I would think, at least in most cases) appearing with Arsenal F.C. in a least of squads or something, since that would be an assertion of sporting nationality of the team, not any kind of statement about citizenship or nationality of the individual players, country of incorporation of the owner corporation, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
There isn't clear consensus on this issue. I've removed equivalent flags from Watford F.C. article infoboxes (my team). My belief is that the owner's nationality is extremely relevant if they are foreign — imagine the reaction if a Russian bought an NFL franchise. European "soccer" fans feel similarly strongly about their ownership.
But while I respect your opinion, I think the issue of how flags should be used if they are in an article can and should be kept separate from the question of whether flags should be there at all. I'm opposed to amending this guideline in any way that allows flags to be used any more than they currently are, I simply want them to be as useful and cause as little disruption as possible. WFCforLife (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That's apples and oranges, though. I never said that nationality wasn't important, I said that the use of the flag in the infobox next to a persons name appears to imply something like nationality, or birthplace, or citizenship, or something and that the reader cannot tell which. Where nationality is important, it should be handled in prose. I think that this guideline does have very, very clear consensus that flags are not to be used to indicate personal citizenship, nor should they be used if user confusion is likely to result, and both of those red flags are triggered in this case. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
On infoboxes I do agree. Look at Watford F.C. or Seattle Sounders FC and you'll see how I deal with flags for flags' sake. But I'd question that there is "very, very clear consensus"- that's just what the guideline says. If a majority passively disagree with a guideline (and actively disagree when challenged), then consensus does not truly exist. WFCforLife (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if we could separate the discussion about infoboxes from the one about templates though. In templates, flags are on occasion the best way to highlight nationality for legitimate reasons (sporting nationality) without emphasising it (as {{flag|Earth}} does). Provided WP:ACCESS is being adhered to (which in the example I have cited it is), why would templates such as the football one be a problem? WFCforLife (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above thread is about whether flags should be used at all. As there doesn't seem to be any objection to the proposed change, I installed it. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-flag test case at TfD

Resolved
 – Just an FYI.

Inline-in-prose use of icons is being tested in a TfD on the use of templates to insert strings of "Stargate" symbols into articles on the TV shows. We mostly see this guideline applied with regard to flags; its application to non-flag icons is likely to be of interest to editors here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What do others think of the little logo being placed on articles? The best its two proponents can come up with is "it's a good placeholder" which is usually an indicator of cruftiness, to me at least. See Talk:List of countries by traffic-related death rate and here is how it looks. --John (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have reverted you. You just don't happen to like that particular icon. You're missing the bigger picture. ALL of those icons are meaningless decorations. Either delete all of them, or keep all of them. Don't pick on the ones you don't personally like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is this your IP address? 122.163.79.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Nice non sequitur. --John (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a non sequitor. The IP is what alerted me to this oddity a week or two ago, when it deleted the flag from the Oracle article, as you did tonight and which re-alerted me to it. In fact, by an amazing coincidence, just by following that IP's so-called contributions, I was able to undo some more of your deletions tonight. Great minds thinking alike, apparently. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for those wishing to adopt this symbol

  • What exactly would you say having this pretend flag adds to the articles?
  • Where exactly was the wide consensus to use that logo to represent "worldwide"?
  • How does it fit in with WP:MOSICON? --John (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth for some previous discussion. Perhaps it should be re-listed. I would support deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your suggestion there of using {{noflag}} ( ) as a placeholder should one be necessary. Good one, and better than this crufty bit of OR. --John (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the use of an OR flag for the sake of being a placeholder, but in that example a placeholder is highly desirable. I support the blank one. WFCforLife (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could explain why there are any flags there at all. They're just tiny decorations, of no particular use. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's not OR. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The world has an official flag? That's news to me. WFCforLife (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It's an illustration of the world. That information is not OR. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the thing: The presence or absence of any of these things has equal value to the average reader - namely, NONE. So why are you wasting your time fooling around with this stuff? Why don't you go work on actual article content instead of focusing on this kind of useless busywork? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that flags are not useful, and good luck trying to win THAT argument. Opinions were requested, and I gave mine. Please don't take it personally. Today is somewhat of an exception, but as a general rule I spend the vast majority of my time editing, so if you're going to criticise me for something please pick something more appropriate. WFCforLife (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you agree that the pretend flag is of no value whatsoever to our readers or our project. Thank you for contributing and for confirming the consensus that there is no good reason for including cruft like this on articles. As volunteers, we are of course free to spend our time here how we choose. --John (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The little flags are equally "cruft". You and that IP address simply don't like these world globe things in particular, for reasons known only to yourselves, and you took it upon yourself to clobber them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I also dislike the tiny flag icons and remove them whenever I see them used inappropriately. However, there is a consensus that using them in lists aids navigation. There is no consensus to use a made-up symbol to represent the world (or as a placeholder, as we have a better way of doing that). Does that now make sense to you? --John (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The rhetorical questions and dismissive tone aren't particularly conducive to discussion. Symbols and other graphical / layout elements are not cruft, nor are they sourceable content in the way facts are. I see that John has spent the last week or two removing both national flags and this world symbol from various articles. How widespread and longstanding is the use of each? The burden really is on the one who wants to change the status quo, and taking willy-nilly potshots at articles either way is pretty disruptive - the changes would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis and potentially reverted en masse if there's no consensus. My two cents is that in general and subject to a few caveats, using banners, flags, logos, or other recognizable symbols in infoboxes substantially aids and speeds comprehension for that portion of the readership that is visually oriented. Those who are not just don't seem to get it. Thus we have perennial discussion all over Wikiepdia on whether symbols are encyclopedic or mere decoration. Specifically, it does make sense to use country flags as visual identifiers in fields where the values are usually the names of nations with well-recognized flags. If such a field frequently admits a value that is not a nation it is better for the sake of consistency to adopt a symbol for that value rather than leave it blank. Thus, a field like "area served" for a corporation ought to have a world symbol, because most companies are specific to one country but a sizable minority operate worldwide. By contrast, "habitat" for an animal species should not be represented by a national flag because most do not fit neatly within national borders. There is no particular reason to use one symbol for the world over another -- that is the nature of symbols. Creating a symbol unique to Wikipedia is just fine as long as it is used consistently and conveys the appropriate message. Ideally the symbol should be simple, recognizable, and have a near-instantaneous learning curve: on first sight a reader's reaction should be "aha, that's Wikipedia's symbol for something being worldwide". What would need sourcing in each case is that something is truly worldwide, not that we use one particular symbol to represent it. How widespread is the use of this symbol, and how longstanding? When making changes the burden really is on the one who wants to change the status quo. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The "status quo" is not to use icons of any kind without a good reason. There is general consensus that using flags of countries in lists constitutes a good reason. There is not currently similar consensus for the world logo. You are of course perfectly free to attempt to achieve consensus. WFCforLife (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(before ec) I'll add that it's a field-by-field question either way, and most of John's edits seem to be good ones. For example, when "World" is used as a legend to mean the total of items in different countries, as in worldwide bean production here,[7] the world flag would be inappropriate even if it were accepted elsewhere - the world is not a list item, and having that symbol there would confuse more than it helps. Ideally the table could be modified to include a thicker line just above the total, so it's more instantly recognized as a total. Here[8] the "world" icon was used clumsily without any clear meaning, except to suggest that something was international. This one[9] isn't clear to me. Normally it would make sense to use a flag icon to report the domicile or headquarters of a company, but perhaps the "location" field is a little different. We don't normally put flags before locations. This one[10] is the debatable one in my opinion. It makes sense to use national flag symbols, or the world symbol, in the "area served" field per my argument above so I think we should do that. However, the question is whether there is consensus on the subject: consensus to add them if they are not generally used yet, or consensus to remove them all if they are widely used. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(after ec)Thanks, that's useful. Does anyone know whether there is a consensus to use national flag icons in company infoboxes and if so, on which fields? Also, about the world logo... when you say there is no consensus are you referring to sentiment on MOS pages or actual Wikipedia practice? I've lived through several mass deletion debates (book covers, logos, "in popular culture", controversy and criticism) and as I've been hinting the burden rests with those who want to upset the apple cart. These meta-pages are good places to discuss and analyze consensus, not so good at creating consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The guideline is on the side of removing flags from infoboxes, although I question whether there is actually consensus because it is frequently ignored, and when the issue is raised, their use frequently defended. When it comes to flags in lists, my understanding is that an uneasy compromise was achieved because flags were official symbols, but that other icons should generally be avoided (although a significant minority continue to believe that flags should not be used at all). WFCforLife (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
From discussion here and at template infobox company (or something like that) there is consensus to not use flags in company infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox company. Quite a clear consensus against I'd say. --John (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A discussion held in a location known only to flag loathers reaches consensus to remove flags. That doesn't necessarily make it invalid, but it can hardly claim to be the final word on the matter. WFCforLife (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, we don't recognize that there is a final word on any matter here, ever. But I am a little mystified by your comment. Where would have been a better place to discuss the use of flags on the company infobox than on the talk page of the infobox, in your opinion? --John (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That was the appropriate place if the discussion was about that infobox. It wasn't the appropriate place if that infobox is supposed to constitute some kind of precident for all infoboxes. Garion is implying the latter. If I have misunderstood, I apologise in advance. WFCforLife (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that at all. I was responding to Wikidemon's question if there is consensus to use flags in company infoboxes. From looking at Template talk:Infobox company there isn't. Garion96 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for misreading. WFCforLife (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative template

See {{noflag}}. Keeps alignment of table/list columns, without making use of made-up nonsense "flags" like globes and globe projections. Also useful for disputed flags (e.g., N. Ireland in many contexts). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›, 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a much better alternative. Thank you. --John (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Now you can sleep at night, knowing that this abominable, horrific problem has been solved. And so can the millions of wikipedia readers who wrote to Wales to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:TEA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you think I'm angry or something. No, I'm laughing at you, for your expending time and effort trying to fix a non-existent problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"That ain't nice, you laughin'!" If it's a non-existent problem to you, then maybe you could extend the hand of peace and cooperation to those of us who do see it as a problem, to fix it? --John (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. You appear angry, Baseball Bugs, since your posts are reeking of excessive sarcasm (twice in a row). I don't think I can be blamed for inferring irritation when you are projecting it. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just a microcosm of the amount of time wasted on wikipedia on minutia like this that no one in the reading public cares about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Where to appropriately use {{flag|World}}

As I understand, the {{flagicon|World}} symbol may not be used in country lists to summarize the total figure over all countries. This was probably the most common use of it. Now I am wondering, is there an appropriate use left for it?

We should also ensure that the MOS receives some clear lines about this after we are done. Tomeasy T C 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, even with my reading glasses on that icon is not actually legible as a map projection; it actually looks something like a cartoonish panel van. Everything else on WP is crystal clear. So, as an icon, I think that image is competely useless. It may have other uses in other contexts at larger sizes of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to underline the principle that these things should not, can not, ever be adopted by our project unless there has been an actual discussion at some central location resulting in a consensus to adopt them. We should never again be placed in the position where an icon has been used fairly widely, for a purpose which it is ill-suited for, for a period of time, without there ever being a discussion first. We are a volunteer project, but that doesn't mean we should get away with being, or looking, amateurish. --John (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Time for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth to be reopened. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If there is no single proper use left for this icon, I think too, it should be deleted.
@SMc, please point at the guideline that is crystal clear to everybody that such icon may not be used i a list. Tomeasy T C 07:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you misread my post. I'm saying that everything - every image, icon, character, diacritic, etc. - is perfectly legible in Wikipedia at my monitor resolution (1920x1200) with my glasses on, with the sole exception of the "Mercator projection"-style "whole world" icon at issue here. This means that unless I am psychotically delusional, the image probably looks like crap for most users, and thus is useless, even if WP:MOSICON wouldn't have anything to say about it. In this discussion I wasn't talking about guidelines, just basic sense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, many words.
What I want, in case we agree on something here, is to have it clearly stated in MOS. Do you agree with this? Tomeasy T C 12:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I won't and can't speak for SMcCandlish but I agree with this. Didn't there use to be a reference in the MoS specifically covering this point? --John (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was in this guideline, and said not to use made-up "flags", and used both shamrock (for all-Ireland) and globe (for worldwide/internationa) "flags" as examples of what to not do. I haven't looked to see if it is still in there, but my head would explode if there had ever been actual consensus to remove it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping you all keep debating this absolutely, thoroughly pointless issue for another 3 years and 17 16 days. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we currently have Do not distort icons: Do not modify or use non-generic icons in a way that is not notably used outside of wikipedia. Maybe that isn't clear enough. Do we need to state this more clearly? --John (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so.
And if there is really nobody here who can think of an appropriate use of the discussed icon, then let's put a delete tag on it. Perhaps this will bring arguments for its usage. And if not, this whole discussion might finally be closed after 1234 days. I think even BBugs would appreciate that. Tomeasy T C 21:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now no instances of this template in the mainspace and I have marked it as deprecated here. Do we actually need to delete it?--John (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth reopened (i.e. both "Earth" and "World" templates nominated). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Included in Laws of rugby league is an incomplete list of changes made to rugby league football's Laws of the Game since it began in 1895. The sport has an ongoing tradition of national and state governing bodies, which control the major domestic competitions, being allowed considerable latitude to do what is best for their jurisdiction with regard to the Laws. As such, in some cases rule changes have been made and adopted at different times in different places and in other cases they have been made in unison through the world governing body. These changes need to be presented together to give a proper account and context, especially as formal universal adoption often lags in this system. Different organisations have acted as the international governing body in the past, including ones without obvious words in their name such as 'international' or 'world', nominally entrusted with the rules. In these circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to use a world icon to symbolise times when all territories are affected as national flag icons are used in others. A symbolisation of territory in this manner is not OR in my opinion and the symbols greatly improve the presentation of information for readers. John has been by today and removed the symbol, I have reverted and brought here for discussion. LunarLander // talk // 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, all the flag icons ought to be removed from that page, not just World. It looks simply terrible. Sorry — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe I should have been bolder and removed all of the flags. Looks like a dog's breakfast with all the little icons scattered around. And what do they actually add? --John (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
TFD Gnevin (talk)

Legend/key

I just made this. Supports up to 100 countries.Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Nice. I'd give it a parameter to have something in place of "Flag" (a good default), since it could be used for other icons. Is this in template:space yet? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Needs a horizontal-layout version too, kinda in the vein of {{CompactTOC8}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I'd be very interested in a horizontal one. Nice work! WFCforLife (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


The "[Flag] XYZ" and "XYZ [Flag]" styles

Resolved
 – Just an FYI (pointer to related discussion).

Everyone who regularly participates here should be aware of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (abbreviations)#Use of abbreviation as an expansion on flags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Inline "globe" icon in Template:Coord

Even with |display=inline, {{Coord}} is using a graphical "earth" icon that is way out of place in article prose. I don't have any issue with this when inline isn't used with |display=, but see for example the latest version of Gulf of Guinea#Extent for how odd this is (for WP text). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The example you've given does look bizarre. Then again, do co-ordinates belong in the prose in the first place? WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All there is a flag related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system which may be of interest to user here Gnevin (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All there is a flag related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Proposed_change_flags_.28Modern_usage_only.29 which may be of interest to users here Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag-overrun time zone articles

Articles like UTC-7 are using the flag icons inline in prose, for every country, US state, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 10:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest tagging with {{icon-issues}} or removing Gnevin (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What flag icon (if any) for Irish Rugby teams?

There is a [very] long debate about the use of an icon in sport articles in front of Irish teams. The Irish Rugby Football Union is organised at the level of the island, therefore the national team includes players from two countries (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland). In addition, there are four regional teams belonging to this Union which play in club competitions. At least one of them cross both countries. As a consequence, the pages like Six Nations Tournament or Heineken Cup do not have any icon for the Irish teams. This could give the impression that Wikipedia has a policy not to use any icon for Ireland. I can't sum up all the debate whose last development are Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Ireland_flag_.28yet_again.2C_and_again.2C_.....29 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union. Several options have been discussed:

  1. Use Ireland, which represent the four provinces but is has been argued by some that is not an official flag and therefore WP:OR
  2. Use File:Irelands Flag.svg which is the flag used by the International Rugby Board to represent Ireland in rugby competitions. This solves the problem of OR. However this flag, while based on the flag of the four provinces, includes the logo of the IRFU in the middle and this logo is copyright. There is therefore a concern of WP:COPY. Given the fact that it is a flag and not a brand logo, I wonder if it could not be argued that this flag could be used under the WP:Fair use, as it is specifically stated that the use of a copyright item in a tabular format is not excluded WP:NFG (though it needs special justification).
  3. Use , which is used on other Wikipedia editions (German, French, Welsh, Spanish, Italian...). The Shamrock was also used before on the English edition and was chosen by survey. A campaign against it later ended up in withdrawing this icon for Irish teams under criticism as OI, V. The debate at that time did not show consensus though. In particular, while it has often been asserted that the Shamrock was OI, this is clearly not the case as it is a pre-existing symbol. However, there is a legitimate concern about the fact that readers could be lead to believe that the Shamrock is a flag for Ireland. A possible solution here would be to include a warning on the pages including the icons (possibly with a note attached to the icon), stating clearly that it is a symbol but not a flag.
  4. Adopt the Republic of Ireland for the provinces of Ireland located in the Republic of Ireland and either nothing, or or for Ulster which encompasses parts from both Irish country.

Clearly this is not an easy question, and given the divided history of the island, Wikipedia should be wary of anything which could seem NOP. We must however not be mistaken, avoiding to give a flag to Ireland in pages where all the other teams have flags may as well raise NOP concerns as it can it could suggest that Wikipedia states as a principle that Ireland should not be represented with a flag or symbol, which would be WP:OR as Ireland is indeed represented by a flag by the IRB.

During this debate, I have proposed several pragmatic solutions. My main concern is that the absence of icon for Ireland makes finding Irish teams harder, it is visually unpleasant, and it is actually very visible on rugby pages and it prompts readers to wonder why Ireland has no flag or icon. It is clear that flags are usually national flags, though there is no formal obligation for that. I think that there can't be a rule valid in all situations given the differences across sports and the teams. To work out a Wikipedia rule must be flexible and in some cases consider exception on a case by case basis.

I think this is the case where such an argument can be made. If it is true that we cannot use the flag used by the IRB, then I would advocate the use of the Shamrock which is unambiguously a symbol of Ireland. It is not a flag, but if any confusion is feared, a warning can be included for readers not to mistake it with a flag. I suggested for instance: "aThe icon of a Shamrock is used on this page to represent the island of Ireland. It should not be confused with an official flag." As suggested by jnestorius in the debate, this issue should be discussed here where the policy on the usage of flag icon in case like that should be discussed. Gpeilon (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider the above due notification to WP:MOSICON and carry on the discussion at WP:RU as I believe jnestorius was suggesting a generic discussion about inventing icons and not just a change of venue. Gnevin (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arising from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, I have opened a discussion at the village pump about the use (and non-use) of copyrighted images in flag cruft. Participants one this page may be interested in commenting on it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_7&oldid=1149004039"