Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

September 2007 – December 2007

Are we ready to propose this yet?

Resolved
 – Moot; proposal and RfC activated.

Personally, I think the current version of this essay is ready for primetime (and long overdue). Shall we officially propose it? Kaldari 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording needs a bit of polishing. Some of the language would be unclear to someone reading this page for the first time. Carcharoth 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Examples? Kaldari 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What is "current citizenship" for the deceased? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"sourcedly-known" was one example, but it's been fixed. There should also be examples for every section, not just some. With a guideline on a very visual issue like this, examples really are needed in every case. Carcharoth 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
One reason why this should not be promoted yet is that the section "Biographical use" still recommends the use of flags in infoboxes of biographical articles, which is not consensus at all - in fact the section "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" discourages it, and during the recent weeks several users (e.g. Andrwsc, Hoary, CG) have given convincing arguments on this talk page why this is a bad idea, with essentially only user (SMcCandlish) arguing for such uses. Regards, High on a tree 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I'll spare you all a summary of my views (expressed above), other than to note two things: (i) Nothing I've read has persuaded me that it's beneficial to slap a flag on anyone other than if that person formally (most likely in sports) represented that (quasi-) nation. And nothing I've read has persuaded me that there aren't likely to be a lot of tiresome arguments. (ii) Assuming for a moment that I'm in a small minority in my immediately preceding first point, and that the dictatorship of the majority Wikipedia "consensus" overrules those objections, we're left with a project page that gets rather exhaustingly (if necessarily) intricate over the etiquette of attaching flags to people. I fear that you'll have trouble getting editors to read this stuff, let alone editors with inflamed (quasi-) nationalist passions. -- Hoary 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What if we reduced the page to what there actually is consensus on (or mostly consensus) and propose that? I feel like this essay has gotten ridiculously tedious as it is, so I would favor reduction rather than further clarification and discussion of minutia. I would be happy if the page simply said "Don't use flags in article prose; don't use flags to indicate birth or death place in infoboxes." The rest we can argue about adding back later. Right now all this content is rather useless though, as it is only an essay and appears to be stuck that way indefinitely. Alternately, we could keep the full essay and split off a guideline proposal for the points that we have consensus on. What say thee? Kaldari 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Until the community is invited to comment, via WP:RFC/STYLE, we won't know what there "actually is consensus on (or mostly consensus)"; it's pretty hard to tell so far, other than by document stability, what the active editors of this page have consensus on. Tedious? Have you read WP:MOS or any subguideline thereof (e.g. WP:MOSNUM)? WP guidelines are generally very detailed and specific and example-laden because they are reference works, not light reading material, and if a plausible situation is not covered it will simply have to be added in later. While the prose could certainly use some tightening, massive reduction, such as by removing entire subsections, will just result in them being added back in again later, after a "well what about X?" arises about the situation that was covered but deleted. PS: I wouldn't take this to WP:RFC/POLICIES and WP:VPP until long after this consensus-building process has run its course via RFC/STYLE-invited additional participation here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Quite apart from my disagreement with some of it, I can't even make sense of it. I first read (after some format-stripping):

Because they are visually striking, placing a flag icon next to something can make its nationality or location seem like the most important thing about it. With an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney is emphatically English (and not so much British). Without a flag, McCartney is a singer-songwriter and guitarist who was in The Beatles, and who also happens to be a British person from England; the music points are surely more important than his "Englishness".

I take this as well reasoned but surprisingly gentle dissuasion from attaching any flag to McCartney. But later I read (again after stripping):

This [draft] guideline recommends the following for biographical usage of flag templates (and recognizing the caveats given above):
  • Using the flag and country name of current citizenship in the "Nationality" (again, not birth/death) line in the infobox.

To me, this clearly recommends that if McCarthy has an infobox, it should sport the British flag (the Union flag) -- though it gives no reason for this. (And it may also hint that he should have the infobox.)

Well, which is it? Should McCartney be labeled with a flag or shouldn't he; and if so, which flag should he get (and why)? -- Hoary 08:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this sort of thing just got fixed in the compromise editing I just did, which also included a lot of inconsistency fixing. I'm surprised no one fixed that stuff before. I found an even more glaring one, where the "Don't Rewrite History" principle was directly contradicted! Duh... I guess stuff like this just happens with palimpsestuous document writing. <sigh> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: I don't see any problem with hinting that Paul McCartney should have an infobox. A few rare "infoboxes suck!" people aside, the general consensus is that eventually all non-stub bio (and many other types of) articles should have infoboxes. Also, inasmuch as it implies/implied that P.M. should get the Union flag, a reason is given, just not right there: the exhortation to use the flag of the sovereign entity (with the caveat that many editors prefer not to with the UK in particular, for UK-specific reasons). So, the implication is there, but moderated in this particular case because of UK weirdness about UK-internal "countries". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish Rugby Flag

Resolved
 – Moot; proposal edited slightly to simply make the issue disappear.

What is the issue with this Flag, it hasn't changed for when i was first put in the articleGnevin 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe it was my old monitor, not showing the border clearly enough for me to see it, but I was pretty certain that it was simply a shamrock image, not a bordered flag with a shamrock, which is not a real flag, but a made up one. The passage in the proposal needs to illustrate usage of a symbol, not made up to look like an actual flag, used as a stand-in for a non-existent flag. Simply dropping the border and having shamrock would do that. In another example in the text, someone else had the same objection to the silly "Earth" flag someone made up, so we replaced it with "World" which (to my eyes anyway) just looks to be a projection-skewed globe. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Image:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg. It has always had a border. The only thing "different" (as compared to before 3 months ago, anyway) is that the border is now always one pixel wide and grey, instead of a decimated and scaled representation of the original thin black border within the image.
As for the world vs. earth example, the "someone else" was me (as easily seen in the page history), and I made the change because the explanation provided (i.e. using the image as a proxy for a "worldwide" flag icon) is not nearly as common as the world map image, as easily seen by looking at "what links here" for the two templates. I'm not commenting on the appropriateness or not of those images, but just documenting which is the more common practice. Andrwsc 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
1) That probably explains why I didn't even notice it had a border back when; it was probably so scaled down as to be invisible to me even with my glasses. That said, one of the few things we do seem to have broad consensus on here so far is that flag stand-ins should not be made in the form of fake flags.
2) Right. The proposals itself is neutral on the matter of things like a world map image and other such stand-ins (other than, as noted above, don't make them into fake flags).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a "fake" flag that some wiki user created its the official flag of the IRFU or at least it was up to this World Cup , they now seem to be flying that green flag .Gnevin 07:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Then we shouldn't be using it as an example here! Anyone know of an image being used in a flag[icon] template that a) is not an actual flag, but a stand-in for the unavailability of a real one, and b) not in flag form (i.e. not bordered to look like a flag)? That's the example this proposal needs. And also not a map (we already use that as a different example). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Your missing the point as the text surrounding the flag has changed .The IRFU flag was added as an example of an attempt by an organisation creating a flag to dodge a flag issue and thus creating a flag issue . This flag and it's usage for Rugby players incorrect when compared to players of other nations. So the point still stands that invented or non national flags are not a work around to flag issues (Gnevin 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
I can't concur. The point of the passage in the proposal was about wikipedians inventing flags. If that is really the official IRFU flag, which I did not know it was until yesterday, then it is not a problem. All flags are made up by someone, and its prefectly reasonable for IRFU to make up an IRFU flag to deal with real-world flag issues affecting them. I don't see that this guideline is affected by that in any way. What I was looking for was a Wikiedia-created stand-in for a flag where no flag exists, that is not masquerading as a flag, but is simply some kind of little icon (other than a map; we're already illustrating that occurence searately), and is actually being used in real articles, e.g. to make tables of data look "right". It's really a minor thing anyway; the map pseudo-flag example may well be sufficient. I think it is really; will edit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A different flag seems to be used officially by the IRB; see here: http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000001/index.html. It looks like the 4prov flag with something in the middle? Maybe the big logo on that page? —MC 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not of concern here; probably mention that at the project talk page, instead (so someone looks into it and adds it as an option or a new template or whatever is needed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC) PS: I see that this has already been done, at WT:WPFT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Icon size

How are these used at smaller sizes than shown here? I admit my obvious and deplorable ignorance on image editing. DGG (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" section too silly

Resolved
 – Proposal text edited to resolve the issue.

The aforementioned section is not logically defensible (as written), because the article factors that make McCartney out to be a guitarist and singer-songwriter with the Beatles, rather than "an Englisman above all", are not lost, or even affected in any way, and the suggestion that a tiny icon at top right overshadows his entire biography is rather absurd. I do not believe that that section represents consensus or even common sense. I'm not advocating immediate total deletion (otherwise I would have already deleted it), but it either needs to go, or it needs a total rewrite with a more solid rationale behind it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly badly-written, but the point that a flag in a person's infobox is visually striking and hence emphasizes nationally is a valid one, methinks. I agree that it doesn't make McCartney look English and nothing else, but it does make him look like an "ENGLISH singer-songwriter" as opposed to an "English singer-songwriter". It seems odd to provide a symbol of his Englishness but not provide little icons next to, say, the genres of music that he's worked in, or the instruments that he plays (e.g. Guitar). Plus, there's the whole English v. British debate. In other words, this section is about NPOV.
So, we could rewrite as follows: Flags are visually striking and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. Without an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney is an English singer-songwriter; with an English flag next to him, he is an ENGLISH singer-songwriter. Emphasizing the importance of a person's nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
I'm sure you can improve on this, but it's a start.Cop 663 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section in the article as above, but I kept the 'dubious' tag. Cop 663 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That works for me, for now at least, other than "ENGLISH" should be "English" or some other level of wiki-markup emphasis instead of all caps. I don't see any other objections, so might as well remove the dubious tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Updating the summary

Resolved
 – Just an FYI; no controversy.

I've tried to update the summary to reflect the most important points in the main document, that have some measure of consensus, and to stick to actually summarizing rather than repeating at great verbosity what those points are. It is surely not perfect, but I hope it helps. I figure that while this is still under a lot of development, the summary section needs periodic review to ensure that it still makes sense in the present whole-document context. (This isn't a criticism; some of the verbosity in it was mine to begin with.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How set in stone is this rule?

Resolved
 – Off-topic; this is not a proposal about infobox fields.

As much as I want to follow this rule and avoid flags in the born/death rows, it seems very bizarre to have to avoid it. If an artist was born in China in 1910, 1911, 1912, 1948, 1949, 1960. Each one of these can be a different flag, representing the different systems that raised the artists. By avoiding the flags, it might actually create more work for the editors. Am I really going to actually type out "Hong Kong British colony"? The flags have a regional and historical significance for all the artists. I feel like enforcing a rule that eliminates flag displays doesn't make sense for certain parts of the world. Is there going to be a bot going out deleting the flags. Benjwong 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing is better than pictures in this regard. Besides, how many people would recognise the flag for Hong Kong British colony? That flag needs a full writing of the name to explain the flag, might as well ditch the flag then. Plus, do you agree with this edit? Garion96 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a perfect example. I was already thinking along similar lines when I read your post. As another post or two somewhere on this page was saying, just the mere presence of a flag is sufficient, it didn't need to neccessarily be the 'correct' flag for that person for whatever 'historica' significance it 'supposed' to represent. So, it just completely opens the door for pages like the one you just showed, displaying the Nazi flag for all people associated with Germany, or (probably even worse), not associating the Nazi flag with any of the Nazi's, and instead displaying the current German flag instead. I really would prefer there not to be all these flag icons in articles, as to me they just seem like some way to 'pretty up' the pages without adding any substance to the material, and they extremely ripe for abuse. But, if community consensus supports it, then I really have no choice either. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents that another person sees some flaws in the flag icons. wbfergus Talk 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If this rule was fully in effect, it needs to be enforced on all the templates. I just went updating a number of singers/actresses without knowing such a rule even existed. Every day people are using Infobox actor, Infobox music artists. There are many other templates too. It is not clear, still, which rows are allowed. Does the origin field allow flags? See an example here. Benjwong 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Much of this is an independent question of no direct relevance here, since this page is not about what fields should be available in infoboxes. This proposal (it is not a "rule", though it may some day be a guideline, which would make it a "quasi-rule you shouldn't ignore without a really good reason", more or less) presently only wants to strongly deprecate using flags to indicate birth and death places, for reasons very clearly explained in the proposal. Yes, there are minor bio infoboxes out there with odd fields like "origin", but they are very, very likely to eventually be subsumed by or at least standardized in conformance with the more generalized {{Infobox person}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop using SVG format!

Disregard
 – Wrong venue; technical problem issues go to WP:VPT.

Wikipedia is becoming useless for students since you decided to change all jpg and png to svg, this "images" are almost impossible to copy and paste in works and other stuff, the person that decided to do this simply made our lives harder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefairh (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the software you're using can't handle SVG images, you could always just copy the PNG thumbnails which Wikipedia automatically generates. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I have no idea what the user above means by "impossible to copy and paste in works and other stuff"; I use both a Mac and a WinXP box, and have no problem with SVGs, other than there aren't a huge number of SVG editing packages out there (countervailingly, one of the best is open source freeware). At any rate, this is not the place to question Wikipedia's use of an image format; take such matters to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of flags

Resolved
 – All non-controversial changes proposed have been made in one form or another.

Wonder when there will be a guidelines that controls the use of flags. Look for example at the infobox in Persian language. The flags are just overused for no real useful purpose other than decorative. CG 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I left a note at the article talk page. --John 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It would look better if it was a list rather than block text. Cop 663 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the most important argument about flag usage is that it brings unnecessary controversy, long pointless disputes and kilobytes of discussion. If we narrow down the use of flags to the useful, informative, encyclopedic (or wathever really good for an encyclopedia), there would be practically no disputes about using any flag icon. Here's a draft of some of my thoughts:

  • Flag icons should be used in a list of countries. It helps for locating and searching through the list (any dispute would be on the content of the list and not the flags)
  • Flag icons should be used in sports-related lists as it is custom in many sporting competitions. Here's there's also no controversy since the flag would be the one any sportsman is representing. If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the german flag would be retained, since he did represent Germany in the competition. Therefore the Scottish flag would be used in the FIFA World Cup but not in the Olympics. No controversy there.
  • Same goes for lists of diplomats.
  • Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist pride. Putting a flag next to a nationality in infoboxes has proven to be useless. I've never seen someone putting a serious argument in favor of using flags in infoboxes. The only argument is that it is common usage. As I said tons of lame edit wars. And if they were no nationality issue, using flags in narrow infoboxes is still cubersome (see Persian language.)
  • Flag icons should not be inlined with text (I think it is the easiest agreement we have reached so far)

As this had been brought up. There will be no "confrontation" between partisans and non-partisans of these flag icons. It should be given that any serious issue (neutrality, copyrights) will be the decisive argument when opting for a decision. As an example, the deletion of WP:BJAODN was at first rejected by a majority of the community, however copyright concerns made the decisive choice even if most of Wikipedians considered it as part of WP culture. And if the use of flag icons repeadetly challenges the NPOV policy and creates much disputes, I think the reasonable solution would be to abandon their unnecessary use.

For now, the arguments described in this page haven't been taken seriously since it is considered as an essay. I would prefer that the communnity agrees on a guideline. The sooner the better. CG 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Flag use should be restricted to acceptable uses, and all uses should be discussed before being accepted. Carcharoth 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Noting that some of this has been non-controversial, I've worked in the sports-related material, which were actually quite good examples. Neither recommendation with "should" in it has been added yet, but they haven't aroused any objections either, so I will try adding them in a separate edit (probably less prescriptively) and take the heat for it if it sets anyone off. >;-) I kind of like the "not the place for nationalistic pride" phrasing, and will try adding that too, with some expectation that I may get reverted. The point after it, though, that all infobox usage of flags is terrible, has been the most hotly debated point of this entire talk page's history, and never came to consensus other than not to go there, pro or con, so I don't think we can add that. Diplomats are covered by the mention of "other similar lists" (if I recall the wording correctly) after the discussion of sports usage; there's no effective difference between the two usages, so adding a diplomats example would be superfluous and probably lead to other "pet" examples being added, which in turn would lead to treatment of the list of examples as exclusive, and then more additions of examples; let's not. The rest is already covered to the extent it has gained consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, both of the "should" points were already covered, in milder language (though I did add the point that flagging lists of sports results is very common practice even in offline media, since the point seems important). Added the WP:NOT point as well. At this juncture, I think that everything from this proposal that has explicit consensus or was not controversial has now been worked in, so I'm going to mark this topic "Resolved". Any issues raised about my attempts to comply with these proposed changes should probably be new topics at the bottom of the page, since this thread is over a month old. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous flagging

Stale
 – Discussion died off; some issues may need to be re-raised for resolution.

Oh brother, someone please tell me I was imagining this. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is that flag usage is 100% correct (Gnevin 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
It may be historically correct. However in the terms of the proposed guideline it is an excellent example of why not for use in birth and death locations and beware political pitfalls are very sensible rules... Cop 663 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Technically it is correct, but this is indeed a great example why flags should not be used in infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An alternative viewpoint is that it is, rather, a great example of why not to overuse flags (use them anywhere it is possible to use them, instead of where it is useful/informative to do so), nor misuse them (in birth/death place, which can imply nationality where it does not apply, or where political squabbles may arise as a result of the misuse). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the good old Nazi Germany flag, one of the big issues with "historically correct" flags. Flags make sense for sporting events and military history because they are used to represent something in those cases. But no one is born waving a flag, or can be held reponsible for the flag of the country in which they are born. Which is one more reason why birth and death flags are really stupid.--Boffob 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with your last comment, and I think that the politics aspect needs to be more explicit that flags should not be used just because they are accurate, if political implications will result. The Nazi flag in particular needs to be addressed, along with the Ulster Banner (probably the two most contentious flags there are). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But these are indeed the acknowledged extremes. How about the ostensibly apolitical English flag? WP tends to confirm that in reality it has strong connotations of the far right. Yet common WP practice is to stick an English flag on anyone who's English. All in all Boffob makes an excellent point, and not just in his/her last sentence. -- Hoary 07:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong opinion on flag of England matter. There is broad consensus, aside from a handful of really hardcore activistic UB-boosters, that the Ulster Banner should generally not be used except in very narrowly-defined contexts, because it is very, very much a partisan political symbol in most contexts. I don't personally know if this is true of the flag of England. I leave that up to consensus to determine. And remain skeptical, personally. Nationalism by its very nature is almost exclusively a right-wing sentiment, so naturally a) any nationalist usage of a flag is likely to be right-wing, and b) any given flag is subject to right-wing nationalist usage at some point and to some degree. The question with regard to that flag in particular is whether that usage has eclipsed its nonpartisan usage to such an extent as to make using the flag problematic in Wikipedia (which is clearly the case with the UB, but to me not so clear at all with the FoE). Given the breadth of its use in flag icons, it seems unlikely to me to be the case with the FoE. And the breadth of that use, BTW, supports at least a somewhat liberal view of flagicon usage in infoboxes for nationality, because actual WP practice determines guidelines, not the other way around. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus by force" won't work; compromise needed

Resolved
 – Compromise position reached, to neither forbid nor encourage flagicon usage in infoboxes, but to discourage abuse and overuse generally.

Enough with the totally sweeping, strongly anti-flag changes to the proposal. The handful of staunch flag-haters here have yet to build a consensus for their position (even here, much less in the face of actual, broad usage, which reflects WP-wide de facto consensus already), so simply going in and rewriting it to say what you wish it said isn't going to fly.

I can sympathize with your position (and am actually much closer to it than I was when this started, believe it or not), but please read WP:POLICY closely: This will never be a Guideline, just a Rejected Proposal, if it attempts to prescribe something that is not at least somewhat within the bounds of actual practice, because Practice determines guidelines, not the other way around. Over time, with more and more consensus-building, it is likely that this guideline could become more stringent, but you seriously cannot possibly hope to get your "no flags in infoboxes ever" position through the first time. It just isn't going to happen, and continually trying to push that angle to its furthest extent will probably doom all of the progress made so far.

In the interim, what probably can plausibly happen is a) some compromise and consensus-building here among the extant active participants to get to a middle ground both sides can live with, even if not 100% happy with it, and b) way more importantly for the future of this document, broader input from the WP community via invites to participate at WP:RFC/STYLE (and later WP:RFC/POLICIES and WP:VPP).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You read too much policy. Yes, we need more input. So stay anti-flag on this page which can always be changed later after more input. After all, that was the point of the original essay. Which you actually have changed [1]. From looking at this talk page many people now object of this proposal because it is too pro flag, including me. Garion96 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hard to write guidelines if you don't study them. :-) Anyway, I have in latest edits produced what I believe is a major compromise version. It broadly and directly acknowledges the "no flags in infoboxes" camp (could possibly be more specific as to their objections), and leans the text closer to their position. Also fixed various wording issues, and a few glaring inconsistencies. Anyway, hopefully this will get us one step closer to consensus (even if the consensus on some bits is that "there is no consensus", which is a perfectly valid observation even in a guideline). As for "many people" objecting that it is too pro-flag, I think I count four of you, and only two to three active, and only one as gung ho about that as you. numbers aside, the entire piece has shifted noticeably your direction; does this help any, from your point of view? PS: As for my rewrite of the very first, skeletal version, you appear to be the first and only complainant, ever. That horse is at least half-a-year out of the barn, I'd say. As for the compromise text, I believe that it really does accurately reflect the current level of discussion and consensus-building. There are lots of parts of this that are not controversial at all, and haven't been since day one. Many others like Centrx have made major changes to contentious parts, and the changes have stuck without further dispute. The most contentious aspect (infoboxes) is directly discussed, in terms of the contention, and the material that formerly could be inferred to be a "just do it" attitude about infobox flagicons is now much more cautious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, this is not a "compromise version" - some weasel language notwithstanding, it is effectively encouraging the use of flags in biographical infoboxes, although many valid arguments have been brought against this.

Frankly, I find your discussion style quite worrying. It consists mainly of talking about the discussion instead of talking about the issues and a lot of name-calling those who disagree with you ("staunch flag-haters" etc. - how would you feel about being called "avid flag fanboy"?). I want to encourage you to debate the actual questions instead. I'd like to quote two posting from the above discussion:



Did you respond to this and give some convincing arguments in favor of using flags in infoboxes? No, just name-calling your opponents and insisting that they are in the minority, whereas in fact during the last few weeks you seem to be about the only one arguing for it on this talk page.

That horse is at least half-a-year out of the barn, I'd say. - This kind of reasoning "if many people do it, it must be right" is deeply flawed. You are trying to imply that when writing a page like this, we should merely document current practices, without ever thinking about whether they are good or bad. This is not how good policies come about, and it is not how current policies were made - for example, consider the history of the "Spoiler" template, which was used very widely in articles for years (the horse being very far out of the barn), until some editors sat down and thought about the right way to do this in an encylopedia. As of today, the template is used in only 2 articles.

And it isn't even true that flags in biographical infoboxes are the norm - I just hit "Random article" until I had encountered 10 biographical articles. Only 2 of them had a flagged infobox, one of them being an athlete who had represented his country at world championships and Olympic Games. Right now, there are some editors inserting flags into biographical infoboxes and some removing them. The right way to resolve this conflict is not to measure who is editing at a higher rate.

To respond to the section heading that you chose: Consensus by forcing lots of flags into articles and then demanding that this be declared good practice won't work. Instead, we need consensus by a thoughtful, informed discussion where everybody can argue their stance and the best arguments can win. We are still waiting to hear yours.

Regards, High on a tree 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You make some very good points, High on a tree. I agree that "staunch flag-haters" is an unhelpful way to characterise those who disagree with you, SMcCandlish. I love and am fascinated by flags; I just think Wikipedia needs much tighter guidelines or every single article will have several. A key principle in examining this area should be that unless the utility of a feature can be unequivocally demonstrated, it should be left out. The comparison with the spoiler template was a good one too; consensus can change, and especially a consensus that was never debated in the first place, but has just drifted to a particular position through lack of any proper guidance. --John 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, with regard to my phrasing. I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, but I guess that got lost in the ASCII. The entire point of this document is to reign in flag mis/ab/overuse. It does not have to be the most extremely tight guideline possible to achieve this goal, however (and if made "much tighter" than it presently is will absolutely not become a guideline, I guarantee, thus automatically failing to do anything at all to even assuage the problem a little, much less really solve it. That said, clearly "every single article" would not end up with multiple flags, or we'd already be there, since there are presently no guideline controls on them at all. What is really going on is that most editors are pretty sensible, but most concerned with article text, its sourcing, and so forth, and do not always deeply think through the repercussions of other sorts of editorial decisions (like putting a flag icon into birth or death place without any regard for a) whether this will imply an incorrect citizenship or b) even if correct, whether it will inspire numerous other editors to add them, as if they are required, everywhere an infox has a birth or death line, with no regard at all to its implicate accuracy, even if the original editor would have thought about that. Meanwhile there are a few utter boneheads who festoon articles with flagicons in every place that can plausibly put one. And finally there are some folks who think about this sort of thign very carefully, including all of the down-the-road implications. Many of that third group are here, and between us and the average editor who isn't presently thinking about such things but can be made to see the issues very easily, the bone-heads are outnumbered by orders of magnitude (i.e. there will be consensus enough for WP purposes against the bonehead behavior). If we opt for a really hard-core no-infobox-flags-ever position, the average editor is not going to go along with this, and consensus will not arise. It's really that simple.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This prediction (that a clear-cut policy based on good arguments does not have a chance whatsoever of convincing "the average editor who isn't presently thinking about such things") flatly contradicts the spoiler example that I cited above, which you conveniently ignore here. And a few lines below you say about other policies: "only a year and a half ago that was still a highly controversial idea". -- High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Fallacious. X does not "flatly contradict" Y, when Y is an uncommon exception to the general rule or statistical trend that X illustrates. PS: The point about WP:N was that it took about 3 years for WP:N in all its incarnations to become an accepted guideline, and it is still somewhat controversial. I've never said that a more strongly no-flags-in-infoboxes guideline would be impossible to achieve, only that it is highly unlikely to happen the first time. I've even suggested at least twice that the more staunch version is probably achievable in the longer run. I.e. you are thwacking a straw man. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As for this "unless the utility of a feature can be unequivocally demonstrated, it should be left out", where are you getting that from? There is no such Wikipedia policy. I don't necessarily think that the underlying sentiment is poor, but the phrasing is highly combative and negative, or will be perceived as such by most editors here. Wikipedians don't like being told "you can't do something unless you prove to someone else's highly personally variable satisfaction that it has 'utility', whatever subjective definition they might like to apply to that word". Wikipedia does not run on utility at all, and flatly rejects it as a valid argument (pro or con) in many contexts. When's the last time you saw an AfD close as "keep" because a bunch of noobs said "keep it, this is interesting and useful!" Wikipedia runs on what is reliably verifiable, notable (lately; only a year and a half ago that was still a highly controversial idea), and presented without personal bias.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding John here. Replace "utility" by "encyclopedic value", and note that Wikipedia "runs on" encyclopedic value very much indeed. It might help you to understand the need to demonstrate the encyclopedic value of flags in articles, and that ignoring this need is comparable to WP:ILIKEIT. If you absolutely need to have quoted a specific Wikipedia policy on you, read Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity. And where do you get the assumption that all arguments against flag use come of "personal bias"? -High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would I replace "utility" with "encyclopedic value" in someone's talk page published statement? Substituting X for a non-equivalent Y in a debate opponent's statements is a straw man fallacy. Anyway, I will address the encyclopedic value issue separately, since the issue has been raised here and below again, and I don't want to respond to it twice. Will probably make it a new subtopic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the principal reason that the proposal really goes into "don't rewrite history", avoid politically controversial flags, don't using flags at all if the reader would be likely to be confused or misinformed by implication (James Joyce example), etc. It focuses on what specifically to avoid, instead of trying to order other editors "thou shalt not put a flagicon inside this particular kind of template, because, um, we said so."
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
High on a tree, you might try getting down off the high horse in that high tree. You've been here all of TWO DAYS before you go off on a ranting rampage. You do not appear to have fully absorbed the meaning and applicability of WP:WEASEL.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You do not appear to know that this expression has a meaning outside the world of Wikipedia policies. See weasel word (quote: "Weasel words can be used to draw attention away from adverse evidence", etc.) --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am; virtually every term used in a Wikipedia-specific way also has other meanings in other contexts, but this is not another context, it is this context. If I wrote to you here of consensus, verifiability, civility or notability, you would not assume that I was speaking of consensus in the context of a church congregation, verifiability in the military intelligence context, civility in the context of intra-familial relationships, or notability in biological speciation context, would you? At any rate, what you are suggesting here is beyond absurd; the compromise edits serve only one purpose: To draw attention to not away from, points of contention (so that they are more likely to get resolved during the proposal period).— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Noting that a number of editors feel X way about something as a way of acknowledging their concerns is nothing at all like adding "The Rolling Stones are widely regarded as the best rock band of all time" to Rolling Stones. Radically different in intent, implication, meaning and potential inferences. Things like that have to be attributable to identifiable sources in articles; on project pages we do not sign our names (go try to find any guideline page on the system that reads "JohnUU, GB234, and GreenJen say 'X', and PuppyPistol and PDKwik disagree, preferring 'Y'". That's not what guideline proposals read like. So, please re-read WP:WEASEL and think a little more carefully about its meaning and applicability before throwing it at people.
On to more substantive matters: As I said on your talk page, it amazes me that I'm bending over backwards to alter my position to agree more with yours and to ensure that the proposal draft explicitly acknowledges your position and the concerns it raises (which also handily identifies very clearly where the parts of the proposal are that do not have consensus yet), only to be received with reflexive revertwarring. I cannot see the rationale behind such behavior. Surely you must understand that if you push for an extreme no-flags-in-infoboxes position that this proposal, no matter what else is says, is dead, dead, dead, and all of our consensus building from mid-April onward (all of which you were conveniently not here for) will have been wasted time. You (or I, or whoever) cannot shove our preferences down the Wikipedia community's throats. This proposals must reflect (sane) general practice, or it will be rejected very quickly. Few proposals ever recover, in any form, from rejection.
I just honestly do not think that the no-flags-in-infoboxes-at-all camp are going to convince the community at large of this position, which is clearly a minority one. Not this time anyway. Maybe a year after a more moderate guideline has been around and the good and bad of what it says and doesn't say have had time to sink in, then maybe (or maybe not; I believe that most of this doomsaying about flags in infoboxes is wildly pessimistic, because we'd already be having very serious problems instead of the minor annoyances we are actually seeing in practice right now, with flagicons being effectively totally unregulated in any way. What we can probably get out of this right off the bat if people will agree to get along and bend a little away from their absolute preference as I have done, is a very strong and solidly consensus backed deprecation of using flagicons for birth/death and other potentially misleading fields. I think that is crucial.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see "consensus building" in the above discussions - I see that a lot of times numerous editors (e.g. Gnevin, Hoary, John, Andrwsc since August alone) have brought numerous arguments against use of flags in biographical infoboxes (not only birth/death but also citizenship), and that almost none of them has been addressed effectively in the discussion. I can't see why you are assuming that the position against such flag uses is "clearly a minority one" (and implicating so in your guideline proposal by the "some editors" wording) - the straw poll above and the low current prevalence of flags in biographical infoboxes suggests otherwise. -- High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do I get that from? Simple observation and basic math! Lets take that five editors (counting you) and double it as an estimate of the number of no-flag-icons-ever-in-infoboxes editors here (which I believe is a gross overestimate, but I haven't done a manual full-page count). Out of a total of 63 editors of this talk page, that is a small minority, less that 25%, seeking this change. Ergo, no consensus. The language has remained stable and well-accepted by the majority of the editors here.
Since you seem to like WP:CONSENSUS as a guiding document so much, here are some salient direct quotations from it:
"Where there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view" which everybody can agree upon." (Emphasis added.) This attempt has been made in good faith, and produced something that everyone who has bothered to speak up is satisfied with, other than a minority of 5-10 editors, and I for one am still working for compromise with them to achieve a broader consensus (while for their part, some of them probably are also and/or have fallen silent either because they don't care much or are already satisfied, while others insist on their position without being willing thus far to compromise. I don't know where we'll go from here, but to the extent that holdouts are unwilling to even consider compromise, please try doing a search on the term "filibuster" and limiting it to the "Wikipedia:" namespace.
""Asking the other parent"
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus...
A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion. Do not be tempted to edit war but instead post comments on the talk page encouraging others to participate in the new discussion."
This is precisely what has been going on here. The even smaller minority (I recall it being more like 1-3 editors) several months ago who raised this didn't get what they want. So they wait and "parent shop" after it is a safe bet that most editors initially involved here are satisfied with most of the text and have moved on. If you check my edit history, you will not that I have not in any way canvassed for countersupport; I don't think it is necessary to make this debate larger and louder, since consensus doesn't change because a handful of people challenge something. Note "antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works", and cf. my "unwiki" comments below, since you asked about them. Note also "good reasons": The doomsaying "reasons" for banning flags from infoboxes have all be addressed directly every time they have been raised. The proof is really in the pudding, and hyperbolic Chicken Little prognosticating about Dark Times to Come if flags are not banned from infoboxes are self-disproving, since flag icons have been totally "unregulated" on WP for over a year, and aside from a few hilarious instances that we lampoon with article history links in the proposal, this Wiki End of Days has not come about, now has it? As ack'ed above, I'm willing to reiterate again the "good reasons" for limited infobox usage since such a summary has been requested, and will do so in a separate subsection, probably later tonite or tomorrow (I have a show to go to in about 30 minutes, and other stuff to do after that, so I will not be home until after my bedtime). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's another way of looking at it: We can push for something much more stringent (the "NO!" position), fail, and accomplish absolutely nothing, and probably do a lot of harm to the cause of reining in flag abuse (I can see the edit summaries now: "Restoring the 10 flagicons SMcCandlish deleted; that stupid WP:FLAGCRUFT FAILED remember?"), or push for something liberal, let the community either hang itself a bit with the rope until there's a broad consensus to reel it back in some, or that actually doesn't happen and everything works swimmingly (which in my experience is just as likely an outcome; not too many outright stupid people are Wikipedians). Either way, that result is way, way better than the current chaotic situation.
To address your points more specifically and in order:
"It is effectively encouraging the use of flags in biographical infoboxes". The older draft from way back before you arrived, i.e. the version on Sept. 10 was essentially neutral on the issue. I'm not sure why you and someone else a few days ago seem to continually conflate "permissible" and "encouraged", which are in fact completely different concepts. But this is really a moot point. The compromise draft accurately, at every instance the issue arises at all (I may have even over-done it), accurately points out that use in infoboxes is opposed by some editors and favored by others (actually I don't think it even expressly states the latter, but gives more voice to your side). It also accurately notes that the practice is already widespread. Nothing wrong with that. We live in reality, not a what-if fantasy.
"although many valid arguments have been brought against this." And every single one of them addressed with countervailing views. If you'd actually been around, or made any effort to catch up, you'd know this already. It is abundantly clear that you have not read much of this talk page, only the last few days worth; on a contentious talk page, like any other forum, the wise lurk and absorb before shouting. Your demands for me to give "convincing arguments in favor of using flags in infoboxes" especially demonstrates this; I've provided such arguments numerous times (in favor of certain kinds of usage) on this talk page; you simply haven't bothered to do your homework. It's very poor logic to assume that because you, in your apparent overeagerness to wade into the thick of things, haven't seen anything from me that I have no such arguments, or worse yet that such arguments do not exist. If I get pressed by more that one party to do so, I guess I can catalogue all of those arguments again, but really. Talk pages don't blank themselves after a day or two, for a reason. You have eyes (or ears and a screen reader), so use them. Your quotes from CG and John make me suggest the same to them.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to you accusation, I did read the entire talk page before posting, and honestly I did not see any such arguments. For example, in April Guinnog and Kaldari voiced concern (along with the original authors of the essay) against the use of flags in biographical infoboxes, and the only argument in your numerous lengthy replies which actually addressed the question why we should have them at all was "flags in infoboxes are pretty common". At another point you argued that people can click on them and "learn something" (cf. WP:INTERESTING). And you insisted that flags bring nationality to the attention of readers more prominently (especially those who are visual thinkers), but that is just a description of what flags do, which has been used as an argument against their use (see the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" section). If I get pressed by more that one party to do so, I guess I can catalogue all of those arguments again, but really - See, in my post above I quoted two parties who had pressed you to do so. I guess if a fourth, a fifth or a sixth editor came up with the same question, they would get the same condescending reaction. You surely have found the time for a lot of personal attacks and wikilawyering on this talk page, so please take a little while and make a concise summary of your case for use of flags in biographical infoboxes. --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It just strikes me as unusual that someone would read all of that and then simply not notice such arguments. As I said, I'll go over all of that again in summary form (I suspect you'll be just as dismissive then as you are now, which is a major reason I've been reluctant to do so, as a waste of time, but your dismissiveness is, I believe, off-base and I will endeavor to demonstrate why.) PS: "wikilawyering" is an accusation of bad faith, and seems rather hypocritical; I see you tossing in plenty of alphabet soup yourself. There is nothing wrong with citing, and where necessary quoting, policies and guidelines; they are here for a reason. Wikilawyering is the willful misinterpretation, misrepresentation, out-of-context quoting and otherwise deceptive, "gaming" or exploitative use of WP policy against its actual intentions. I don't see anyone here doing that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
CG's entrance here in early or mid-June, after the document had been stable for over a month, was to immediately want to push this toward guideline status. I was the one who opposed that, on the grounds that I didn't feel that consensus had been reached on the very same issues still arising now (this may explain why I'm a little rankled right now at getting savaged for trying to work toward consensus). John arrived even later, in mid-July, apparently coming in via the WP:RM about this page. And again the document went stable. Then all of a sudden, someone wants to make a big change, and now that three four, by Tree's count people agree on this turn-it-on-its-most-negative-ear change, you seem to think there's a consensus for it. That's just a very tiny, suicidal bandwagon. Anyway, the fact that neither of them have seen or remember seeing any discussion but no-flags-in-infoboxes means that they too have not read back far enough. Most of the editors who did not hold this view were satisfied with the June draft and moved on. A further symptom of your missing out on most of the dicussion but leaping in as if the discussion hadn't started until you arrived is your apparent assumption that what you reverted to last was the consensus, stable version of the document. It emphatically was not. It was a sweeping sudden change, which I undid and started this thread to hash it out. I'd appreciate it if you'd not go re-re-re-whatever-vert again, and actually let this discussion take place. Other than you throwing my attempt at compromising in your direction back in my face, there hasn't been any discussion of the compromises at all, whether they appease anyone, go too far, or what. I'd like to hear from some people who actually have some real history here, to be quite frank. I don't just discount your views, mind you, but they have no context and are coming off a bit shrill and abrupt, is all.
Re: My tone; as noted to John, I was trying to be arch, and it came off as simply aggressive. Sorry it did. As for "avid flag fanboy" it wouldn't offend me, I'd just find it silly. What you have missed in previous discussions is that I do not think that all infoboxes should have flags, I just don't see a clear and defensible rationale for a total ban on them, and have provided numerous aguments/examples/cases of their utility, harmlessness, and yes even simple aesthetic qualities. The fact that there are cases where a flag should not be used does not mean that flags should never be used. I'm reminded of an old friend who gets violent when he drinks. Does this mean that no one should drink? That alcohol always causes violence? Or that my friend, due to his particular circumstances, is an exception to a general rule of thumb that moderate drinking isn't a big deal?
"...whereas in fact during the last few weeks you seem to be about the only one..." To quote Mark Twain, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". You are fooling yourself with a biased sample. This entire debate goes back in one form or another about 5 months or so (here; it predates this page in other formus), and due to the grossly more negative name and intent of the true first version this page has been a self-selecting attractor for anti-flags-in-infoboxes viewpointholders. Even so, the document has been remarkably stable, so your rather alarmed-seeming rant about weaselwords and false compromise seems a wee bit off-kilter, and other reason I'd also like to hear from those who raised concerns related to yours a while back, since I have a clearer sense of what their position is and why. "Where you are coming from" is still a bit hazy.
"This kind of reasoning "if many people do it, it must be right" is deeply flawed." Of course it would be. Glad I didn't actualy even imply, much less say that. Straw man fallacy. I won't repeat the actual point in long form, since I've already made it several more times today above, the short version being: infoboxe usage already has substantial buy in, so a hope of finding WP-wide consensus for a ban on flags in infoboxes is in fact hopeless (at this stage; problems down the road could change minds).
"You are trying to imply that when writing a page like this, we should merely document current practices, without ever thinking about whether they are good or bad." Ditto the above paragraph, basically. That hyperbolic interpretation is your personal inference, not my implication. I have no control over what goes on in your head about what I'm writing, though I guess it behooves me to try to be more explicit in hopes of avoiding similar misunderstandings.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You made this kind of argument numerous times, for example at the very beginning of this thread: "actual, broad usage, which reflects WP-wide de facto consensus already". --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course I did. Consensus can change but it does not do so willy-nilly. Another direct quote from WP:CONSENSUS since you don't seem to be getting the point: "Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." That is precisely the case here. In an intentional or coincidental case of "asking the other parent", a view that was a tiny minority of active editors in this limited group, garnering virtually no support, has returned as a temporary majority over the last week or two (still a small minority of total editors of this talk page), who do not seem to collectively realize that they are outgunned by the preferred practices of the wider community, which you yourself demonstrate to show a very large and growing tolerance for flagicons in infoboxes (~20% of bio infoboxes have such icons by your own count, up from a miniscule number only a few months ago). I know that you want to ban this practice. The community shows no such inclination, so it is not our "job" here to tell them all to go soak their heads, it is to accept that the practice has widespread acceptance and to offer guidance on how not to completely screw up when doing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler story: Yeah, sure, I spend plenty of time in CfD and TfD and see changes like that all the time. WP evolves constantly. The example doesn't seem particularly evidentiary of anything to me.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I cited it as evidence that widespread customs can be changed by a well thought-out policy. You even alluded yourself to other such cases. What does you make so sure that it can't be done in this case? --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
NB: Please note that I did address your spoiler example; above you alleged that I did not. Anyway: A ban in the face of widespread acceptance of that which is to be prohibited is not a well-thought-out policy. A guideline that recognizes and guides actual practice certainly could be, as could be a later modification of it to be more stringent if and after the original, moderate guideline proves to be insufficient. I have never said that it cannot be done; in fact I've said several times that it might be necessary to go there, under those conditions. By way of analogy, it's like saying that "burglary is a problem" and proposing that "anyone caught burglarizing will get life in prison", without first seeing whether a "anyone caught burglarizing will get 5 years in prison" is a stabilizing enough deterrent to keep the burglary problem within societally manageable levels. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"And it isn't even true that flags in biographical infoboxes are the norm": Third straw man. No one here has ever said that they were. The fact that its up to roughly 1 in 5, however, means that there has been a great amount of growth in their infobox usage. They used to be downright rare in that circumstance. Again, what you misinterpret as "that's just saying it's okay because it's common" is really an observation that there is now a vanishingly small chance for consensus on a ban on flags in infoboxes (even one that permitted them for the sports-only uses you seem to approve of). Related points are that "official representation" is hardly limited to sporting contexts, and we're right back in the same boat. I already pointed this out but here it is again. Official rep. usage to sports will lead to official rep. usage for ambassadors and the like, which will lead to renewed usage on other politician/civil service infoboxes, and then we'll se them on infoboxes for actors and physicists. I predict that this process would take about 1.5-3 months to go from all flag icons removed from all infoboxes except sports people to right back where we are now.
"Right now, there are some editors inserting flags into biographical infoboxes and some removing them.": Precisely my point, and precisely what the compromise wording finally says. How you can object to stating the truth, a truth that lends more support to your views than mine, is beyond me.
"The right way to resolve this conflict is not to measure who is editing at a higher rate." I never suggested that either.
"Consensus by forcing lots of flags into articles and then demanding that this be declared good practice won't work." No one suggested that either. I am getting the feeling that you are "insufficiently wiki" to grok this with complete fullness.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is wise to even respond to these kinds of personal attacks that you are employing all the time, especially such a weirdly worded one (what is your definition of "being Wiki"?), but let me just remark that I have been a Wikipedian since 2003 (here and on the German Wikipedia, where I am an admin and checkuser), and that I have seen a great many policy debates thank you. -High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
See my next level-1-indent material immediately below. It's not an attack, it's an honest, subjective observation that you "appear to be coming from an authoritative, prescriptive, 'there oughtta be a law' viewpoint", which is decidedly "unwiki". You don't need to throw your adminness around; being a wikijanitor does not mean that one necessarily groks wikinature. I'm sorry if it offended you; I'm trying to make a salient point about your apparent behavior and philosophy, not call you names. That's what WP:DICK is for. >;-) NB: If you think I'm actually being a dick please consider that dickish behavior is generally spawned by said behavior in others. I recognize that I can tone down my arguments here, and will attempt to do so; I hope you will as well. Anyway, I don't think there's a page on "unwiki" and "wikinature"; just search for the terms, and you'll see how they are used and what they mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be coming from an authoritative, prescriptive, "there oughtta be a law" viewpoint. Everything you've said so far rings with that mindset, in my virtual ears anyway. Wanna-be guidelines that attempt to prescribe new practice that does not match actual practice, never become guidelines. Ever. Guidelines that describe the actual consensus view of best practices (i.e. concerned editors convincing unconcerned but smart editors that what the boneheads are doing is bad) often do. The more prohibitional this document becomes the muliplicatively more likely it is to be rejected. Just the way it works here. WP:NOT Congress/Parliament (thankfully). Worse yet, you seem to be willfully and very negatively misinterpreting good faith edits by other editors as "forcing" icons into articles; please show me even one WP:3RR revertwar over flagicons. Anywhere. Are you a boxer or something? I'm pretty surprised at all this Mortal Kombat phaseology like for "force" and "win" and so forth, like this was some kind of wrestling match.
"Instead, we need consensus by a thoughtful, informed discussion where everybody can argue their stance and the best arguments can win.": Again that is a very un-wiki sentiment. WP:NOT a battleground. It is not about winning or losing, it is about coming to consensus, which requires compromise and some effort to understand one another's positions and the reasons behind them.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A desire for a thoughtful, informed discussion where everybody can argue their stance is an "un-wiki sentiment"? Since you invoke WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, let me quote from there: Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. This is exactly what you are doing here by musing about my personality (I had to look up Mortal Kombat btw.), calling me "un-Wiki", others "boneheads", effectively forbidding me to voice my opinion or editing the page because I have not been posting on this page for long enough etc. Quoting further: Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. [...] respond solely to the factual points brought forward... - exactly what I was saying: Factual arguments should decide the outcome of a discussion, not personal attacks.
I think a guideline is actually there to guide editors about what is the best way to handle certain aspects of writing an encyclopedia. If somebody disagrees with a guideline, of course their views should be heard and if they have a good point, it should be changed accordingly. And there is always WP:IAR. What is wrong with that mindset?
effort to understand one another's positions and the reasons behind them - that is what I am trying to do, that is why I keep asking you for those reasons for this kind of flag use, which you are refusing to tell us. --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you keep phrasing this in terms of "argument", "winning", "force", etc. is, yes, unwiki. I'm sorry if you feel insulted; insulting you is not my intent (getting you to realize that you appear to be promoting and actively operating within a combative to-the-victor-go-the-spoils philosophy is the point). Your personality is of no concern to me, only your actions and statements. For all I know you're the nicest person in the world. I don't see how you could feel harassed or intimidated, though I recognize that you could be insulted (as I am by accusations of things like wikilawyering; it takes two to fight, as the saying goes.) Also, I wasn't referring to you or anyone else here as a bonehead, which was pretty obvious. I was referring to people who put 9 flag icons in an infobox as boneheads, and your camp would appear to agree strongly that they are boneheads, even if it is convenient here for you to throw the term back at me, even while you advance a position that would treat them like really, really bad boneheads.
"if they have a good point, it should be changed accordingly": No. If there is consensus to change it, it should be changed. There are "good points" that can be raised about virtually any principle or instruction in WP policies and guidelines. Heard, yes; automatically acted upon in favor of the alleged good point, no.
Your third point: Acknowledged, I'm just out of time in this particular editing session. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"We are still waiting to hear yours.": That's a bit like sitting on a pile of burgers and asking when the food is coming. That there are pro and con arguments was settled way back in April. You coming to recognize that there are, and what they are, is your on your plate, and if you won't bother to even familiarize yourself with the history of the debate you've wandered into, you should probably go do something else. Nab a vandal or something. If you read the backstory and find that you don't understand some of the points, or have disagreements with them, I'll be happy to discuss that, but I don't feel obliged to repeat the lot of it, on my time.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
These remarks, as well as the proud proclamation on your user page ("I'm the principal author of that by far.") gives me the impression that you are feeling as the owner of this page. The fact that you are the user who has been posting by far the largest amount of text on this talk page does not earn you a natural right to write the guideline all by yourself. And I frankly can't see the "pile of burgers", even after reading the whole talk page. --High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please. Centrx among others have radically altered this document, and many many others have had input as well. I'm still, both statistically and by its general "guideline-like" phrasing (compare the very first version!) the principal author of it. This is a really really cheap shot, by which reasoning anyone anywhere on Wikipedia being proud on their user page of this article or project page or that one is somehow a bad person. Other point (you want a summary of the pro argument) ack'd, again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I've been awake for over 24hrs may have a fair amount to do with my reluctance to spend my time that way. And is almost certainly part of why this will probably come off as a rather cranky message (other reasons already given).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
See, I have been following this discussion for a while and the reason that I decided not to stay silent any more was that I was worried about the eristic way you have been arguing here, constantly attacking your opponents instead of their arguments. Of course it does surprise me that you now apply the same tactics against me, starting off your answer with a personal attack (ridiculing me for my user name). Still the consistent way you are accusing others of things that you might actually be perceived of doing yourself is astonishing - e.g. telling me I "go off on a ranting rampage", in a post which is 19 kilobytes long and does everything but actually addressing the pros and cons of what this page is about, namely the use of flags in articles. Or accusing me of being pugnacious and fantasizing about me as a boxer using obscure video game references (similarly, you derided Garion96 and another user as "gung ho" and several others as "boneheads"), merely because I was suggesting to conduct these discussions more as a debate of arguments than conflict of people (or "camps", as you say).
You have found the time to write pages and pages of this stuff (I guess this has been of the longest postings I ever replied to on a Wikipedia talk page), but you "don't feel obliged" to do what I (and other users) have been politely asking you for - namely, to finally present some actual arguments in favor of flags in biographical infoboxes. Even just a short summary of your reasons would be appreciated. (I see a lot of your edits are in some sports-related topics, perhaps your position is based on experiences there which you could explain here?) Really, we are prepared to listen.
Regards, High on a tree 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize more explicitly for offending you. I was tired and concomitantly cranky, and should have recognized that I would do so, but I didnt, so mea culpa. However, I think your interpretation of WP:NPA is rather idosyncratic. An ironic, jesting comment in reference to a username (not based on someone's actual name, like "John") is not an "attack". Neither is observing that a "mini-cabal" or "camp" has formed, in precisely the way described and deprecated at WP:CONSENSUS#"Asking the other parent", nor is characterizing observable behavior and expressed attitudes as "gung-ho" (which simply means "highly enthusiastic"). I am not offended by your "eristic" label on me; I simply disagree with it, and the fact that you perceive me as eristic when I am not makes me introspective enough that I want to identify what it is about what I've said here that's made you feel that way, and avoid doing it again. I'm not seeing much evidence of similar introspection on your end. Ask yourself why I seem to think you are thinking in wiki-unnatural terms of winning/fighting instead of consensus building (i.e. eristically; what was that you said about me applying labels that seem to apply more to myself? Perhaps that is happening on both sides.) Why do I perceive that you are unwilling to even consider compromise and will only be satisfied with the most extreme con vs. pro outcome here? Why do I get the impression that you haven't been paying attention to previous debate on this topic? Why do I feel that you are failing to understand how consensus (and I mean WP:CONSENSUS not some non-WP vernacular usage of the word) works and favor authoritative/legalistic approach that tells Wikipedians "thou shalt not..."? Think on that stuff a little while, and I will think on why you think I'm being aggressive, insensitive, controlling and (in another curious inversion) legalistic (did I miss any?) Hopefully tomorrow or the next day we can try again with better results. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New compromise - thoughts?

As some of you may've noticed I took a long self-imposed break from this topic. In the interim, Centrx did something typically-Centrx (in my experience with that editor) and tried something intriguing and pretty smart: Instead of fighting over what we should or shouldn't say about infoboxes (other than "don't use flags for birth/death" which is undisputed), just recognize that there's no consensus on that and don't mention it at all. After re-reading the changes a week+ later, I find myself in agreement with this, and I note that it hasn't generated any visible conflict here. I'm coming to a "works for me" conclusion about it. I think a few minor details need to be restored (without reference to disputed aspects), but that's a trivial matter, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I take the deafening silence as assent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Stale
 – Too many separate topics overheatedly discussed in one thread for this to reach resolution, thus the discussion has died off.

I dont agree with the proposed mass deletion of flag icons, it stinks of censorship IMO. Can someone please explain why flags in articles such as these [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] would be deemed unacceptable? This whole debate should be brought to the attention of ALL editors before a wide sweeping rule is enforced by the tiny minority on here. Sue Wallace 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Bland is using the 50 star flag which it could be argued is incorrect
Jim Carrey was born before that was the flag of canada the correct one at the time was Image:Canadian_Red_Ensign.svg
Thomas Edison why not the correct US flag at the time? 3 incorrect from 5 examples for me this is the major issue with flags their usage incorrect so often.
As also as the article says Do not emphasize nationality without good reason This is still under discussion as in my opinion still along way from becoming policy (Gnevin 22:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
It's not censorship. Flag icons in these cases are unnecessary (they provide no relevant information that cannot be expressed by the name of the entity they represent), and bring extra complications, as pointed out above by Gnevin and mentioned in the proposed guidelines (which entity to pick, which time-frame, obscure flags, flag indistinguisable at icon size, controversial flags, etc). So to avoid silly edit wars caused by the presence of a flag icon, it's much easier not to use a flag icon at all, except in a few cases where flags are actually relevant and useful (in certain articles relating to sporting events and military history, or articles with list of countries or representative of countries with repeated entries).--Boffob 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Jim Carrey is not incorrect nor is Thomas Edison Because the flag-icon is representing the symbol for the country not the person or their nationality. Sue Wallace 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you need to represent the country in those articles? Cop 663 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If incorrect flags (in time-oriented historical context) is perfectly acceptable, then which is the preferred way of displaying the flag icons? Adding the Nazi flag to all articles dealing with Germany or German people, or instead using the current German flag for Adolph Hitler and the rest of those associated with Nazism? Which flag would be associated to articles about East German Olympic winners? The East German flag or the current German flag? If flags are going to be used (personally I think they should go), then at least the most accurate flag for that article in the correct historical context for the time. But then that also gets into another whole realm of which flag to use. Say there is an extremely notable German who was born back in the days of the Kaiser (whichever flag that would be). Then they perform several notable acts during the Third Reich (yet another flag), then after WWII they get stuck in East Germany where they continue their notable acts (another flag), are still alive and preforming additional notable acts after German Reunification (still another flag), and finally die in a different country (final flag). It all gets rather messy without adding any value to the articles. wbfergus Talk 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I could argue, why mention a country in the infobox at all? See National flag the opening line clearly states A national flag is a flag that symbolises a country.
So is it incorrect for Jim Carrey's Place of birth to be shown as Canada with the Canadian flag? Sue Wallace 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Which Canadian flag? Cop 663 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sue, the Canadian flag at the time of Jim Carrey's birth (in 1962) was the Canadian Red Ensign, not the Red Maple Leaf. The adoption of the Maple Leaf as the Canadian flag took place in 1965, so displaying the current flag in conjunction with his birth is historically incorrect and does not represent his country at the time of his birth. Although, it does give me the opportunity to provide my usual explanation for why flag icons should not be used. Pick out the Canadian Red Ensign by sight alone . At the size used to display flag icons they are virtually identical. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sue, with all respect I think you have it back to front. What encyclopedic purpose do the flags serve? I have been asking this for a while and I have never received a coherent answer. Unless a convincing rationale for their retention emerges, they should always be removed. In an encyclopedia, words are better. --John 14:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

John - with all respect? I think you may be using that word with a touch of sarcasm, as I see you have already deleted the flag icons on ALL the articles I listed above stating:
(rem redundant flag icon)
So the flag icon is already redundant?
This discussion/debate has already been decided? so what is the point of this debate? Is this debate just paying lip-service to make it look like it was a democratic decision?
Besides, as editors can go around at the present time, deleting all the flag icons from whichever articles they see fit with complete impunity anyway, what is the point of having a written policy?
In answer to the question.
A (optional) small, discreet, visual representation of a National flag in the form of a (flag icon) in a infobox - showing a place of birth (or death) alongside the country name is for me - "at a glance" information without having to read a whole sentence - it is also arguably educational to the casual reader, and for someone with an interest in geography and different contries, especially with lesser known National flags perhaps the starting point of curiosity and further investigation.
A national flag represents a country, stop trying to make it look like it's representing the person or their nationality. Period.
Jim Carrey is from Canada, and to virtually every unanal person, is perfectly acceptable to use a Canadian National flag in place of birth same as it is acceptable to type the word Canada in the place of birth neither is incorrect. Same reasoning for Bobby Bland, Thomas Edison etc etc.
Where is it that states agreed policy is: A national flag icon - MUST be exactly the same historically as the one under which a person was born at the time of their birth?
Why is Nationality being brought into the debate at all? when as far as I am aware, an infobox doesn't even state a nationality?
Is there a political agenda? If there is, would it be POV? Sue Wallace 17:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You may not consider being historically accurate but wiki should be as accurate as possible,their is not political agenda behind this .In fact this proposal hopes to remove a point of contention where artificial agendas could be pushed
Just a note to say wiki is not a democracy, (Gnevin 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
Some infoboxes have nationality, and even "residence", e.g. C. R. Rao. But the use of historical flag icons is only one issue with birth and death dates. Some vexilophile editors have gone out of their way to put "historically accurate" flag icons next to date|location elements of infoboxes. I'm pretty sure the Pierre Trudeau article had an Old Red Ensigns next to his birth info and a Maple Leaf flag next to the death info at some point. Two different flags for the same country! But to put twice the same flag would just be redundant as well. And it doesn't stop there. Provincial or state flag icons have been popping up too, and many of those are pretty obscure and the elaborate ones are hardly recognizable at icon size. In each case, the flag icons add nothing that can't be expressed by the country or state/province name (which are also more recognizable than their flags). So the only way to avoid cluttering and silly edit wars over which national or subnational or historical entity to pick is not to use flag icons in infoboxes at all.--Boffob 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you added a flag to the infobox of George Washington, what would it be? How about Mao Zedong? The countries they are associated with didn't even exist when they were born. On a similar note, look at the infobox of Jaromír Jágr. He was born in a country that no longer exists, but his current nationality (corresponding to the team he plays for at the Olympics, etc.) is noted with the flag. I think that's the right way to do it. There are far too many problems when you attach the flag to a birth place (as noted numerous times), but if a current nationality is important (as it is with respect to athlete infoboxes for the national teams they represent), then that is the only logical place to put a flag. For actors, I fail to see the significance of their nationality, and the editors who worked on {{infobox actor}} apparently agree with me because it doesn't include a parameter for that. Andrwsc 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If the nationality of a person is that important to me that i want to see the flag of their nationa its at most a click away. Since the country will be linked and that will include the national flag. So if i'm reading about Emmanuel Adebayor and say hey i wonder what the flag of Togo looks like i just click the link to Togo in the infobox Gnevin 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Aside from this guideline that suggests removal of flag icons if they are associated with place of birth/death/etc, there is no policy that expressly dictates which flag icon should be used. The guiding principle is that as a encyclopedia Wikipedia should provide information that is as historically accurate as possible and using a flag that is historically inaccurate would be counter to this guiding principle. Flags and borders change and Wikipedia should be cognizant of this. Using a historically inaccurate flag is (in an admittedly extreme example) equivalent to saying a person that was born in Saigon, South Vietnam and left/died prior to the Fall of Saigon should have their place of birth updated to say Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam simply because the name of the city changed after they were born/stopped living there.
Not all infoboxes have a field for nationality, true, but some, like {{Infobox Person}} do and the lack of one is perhaps an issue with the people infoboxes that do not have this field, not this proposed guideline.
If a person is interested in flags, a flag icon is not going to be overly helpful as, in most cases, they will be taken to a rather uninformative image page for that flag and their curiosity in geography and flags would be better placed by selecting the link to the City/State/Country to the right of the flag icon. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
comment on this point specifically — There has been some discussion to use the ImageMap extension to link directly from the flag icon to the main article on the country/region/etc. This requires the ImageMap syntax to take variable parameters from a template, which is not yet supported. This is one darn good reason why the {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, etc. templates should be used instead of inline image syntax within articles. Once this technology works, it can be rolled out virtually simultaneously to thousands of articles... Andrwsc 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
And, just to continue the response in reverse of your comments.. Your answer to John seems to be countered by my example of the flags of Manitoba, Ontario, Canadian Red Ensign (and the numerous other instances where the Red Ensign has been used as the basis of a flag) where the size of the flag icon makes it completely indecipherable (NJ flag looks like a black dot on a yellow background at 25px in size) and/or indistinguishable from other similar flags. being two examples of indistinguishable. At 25px, the presence of a flag in many cases will not only require one to observe the flag, but then also read the associated word to that flag to determine which flag it is supposed to be. Even then, how flags are placed to the left of Birth/Death places gives the impression that the flag is associated with the city and not the State/Country. So, back to Jim Carrey, the placement of the Canadian flag to the left of Newmarket, Ontario, Ontario, Canada would give someone that is unfamiliar with the flag of Canada the impression that the Maple Leaf is Newmarket's official flag. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Like anything else, the inclusion of a flag icon needs to be justified by an increase in utility. It is highly significant that I have never seen any coherent rationale expressed for the inclusion of flagicons in infoboxes. Should one emerge, I shall be happy to reconsider my views on this issue. --John 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


1. Why are only extreme and unusual examples used when 99% of articles have no controversy?

I have edited on Wikipedia for months and on many different articles and I can honestly say

I have never come across any similar to these. If one were to go into any 10 random, popular articles I doubt if any one of them would have any issues in common with the examples shown here.

2. If disputes occur where there is genuine ambiguity they should be dealt with on an individual basis, isn't that one of the reasons for admin.? I think it's wrong to issue a blanket ban using this as a basis.

3. If you added a flag to the infobox of George Washington, what would it be?

First off, I would not edit articles that I have virtually ZERO knowledge of.

But as you are asking, perhaps a United States flag icon for Place of death - as it clearly states that the United States is the Place of death. and that is the National flag of America - pretty unambiguous unless you over analyse. If this is incorrect then it must be incorrect to state United States in the place of death.

Note: the flag would not be changing G. Washington's nationality.

4. For actors, I fail to see the significance of their nationality, and the editors who worked on infobox actor apparently agree with me because it doesn't include a parameter for that. User:Andrwsc

Are you saying that I do see a significance of nationality? Because if you do you

either haven't read or have misunderstood completely what I am saying. Adding a national flag next to a country name in place of death, and/or place of birth, is not disputing/adding or contradicting a person's perceived nationality because a national flag represents the country NOT a nationality or a person and if people are basing their argument on that basis then they are factually incorrect. In all articles I have edited, the nationality has always been added in the body of the article not the infobox.

5. Proof that editors/admins. are getting the use of flags linked to nationality (even though it is not even implied). see: [7] where I had a conversation with User:John regarding the use of an England flag in the infobox - Origin of rock band The Rolling Stones. I highlight an excerpt from the following reply I received:

why should an article on the Rolling Stones carry a little England flag? Why not a
Union Jack? Have the band, separately or jointly said that they consider themselves to be English, rather than British or European?

note - I have taken the liberty of highlighting the text in question. There was an England flag in the band's origin only - not nationality or anything else.) My reply was that it was more accurate. (But hey, apparently that is not a good enough reason).

6. So are some getting the fundamentals of this argument confused?

7. Are some complicating the issue unnecessary, either intentionally or unintentionally?

8. Is removal of editors edits when there is no policy in place to assert that removal, a form of POV cyber-bullying?

9. Is it incorrect to state that flag icon use is now redundant?

10. Since it is others who are requesting something to be made policy shouldn't the emphasis be on them to prove a burden of proof - rather than the other way around? Sue Wallace 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On point 6, I'd say, yes, you are getting the fundamentals of this argument confused. As above, I have still not seen any coherent rationale expressed for the inclusion of flagicons in infoboxes. --John 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I dispute your claim that "99% of articles have no controversy". I think your sample set of the two million articles on en.wiki is biased by your work on current day musicians etc. I have made edits to about 20,000 unique articles — many of which were flag-related edits — and I would assert that a fairly significant number of them have historical flag issues.
My point about George Washington is worth repeating. You would be okay with adding a USA flag next to his place of death, so why not add the pre-1801 Union Flag for British North America for his place of birth? Does it not draw attention and possible confusion to put Kingdom of Great Britain in the infobox of the first American president?
I think the key point is this: there are far too many "exception cases" for using flags in infoboxes for birth/death locations, so it is simpler and safer to avoid the issue altogether, especially since they don't add any value other than decorative effect. Even a flag for a nationality field in an infobox is potentially problematic — we need a reliable source for the person's nationality to include it in the article. Do we know that Jim Carrey still holds a Canadian passport? This problem is slightly alleviated for athletes, since we usually have sources that clearly show which national team he/she competed for, and that is why I think that is the only safe situation for flag inclusion in a biographic infobox. Andrwsc 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"why should an article on the Rolling Stones carry a little England flag? Why not a Union Jack? [Have the band, separately or jointly said that they consider themselves to be English], rather than British or European?"
Who is getting the fundamental issue confused John? I'd say you are because I think it's pretty obvious if a band's origin states for example England with an England flag icon next to it, it's clearly stating where the band originated ONLY - it seems ridiculous for you to put 2+2 together - coming up with 5 by then linking it to the individual band member's Nationality?
I repeat, a National flag is used to represent a country IT DOES NOT represent individuals nationality. Sue Wallace 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If it does not represent an individual, then why put it in an individual's infobox? Seems weird. Cop 663 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
My point about George Washington is worth repeating. You would be okay with adding a USA flag next to his place of death, so why not add the pre-1801 Union Flag for British North America for his place of birth? Does it not draw attention and possible confusion to put Flag of the United Kingdom in the infobox of the first American president? Andrwsc
Sorry, I don't get it, you have not just proven that using the historical factual flags reasoning doesn't work? To follow your reasoning, shouldn't ALL the historically factual flags throughout the individuals lifetime be shown? Now that would be really accurate! It would also be ridiculous. Also, who say's historical flags MUST be shown anyway? Like I said before, I think some are overly confusing this issue. Sue Wallace 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me try again: if we always include flags for birth location in infoboxes, then you have a couple of choices.
  1. You can use the 2007 flag for that location, but that will result in many awkward instances (e.g. countries that didn't exist when the person was born) and a handful of misleading instances (e.g. people born abroad of their assumed nationality, such as Bruce Willis born on a US army base in Germany).
  2. Alternately, you can use the historical flag for the location, but that also results in too many awkward instances (e.g. a Union Jack next to Washington's name, a Nazi flag next to Romy Schneider's name, etc.)
What I'm saying is that I think there are a sufficient number of exception cases like this, and therefore, it is better to stop using flag icons for this specific purpose than to try and justify each instance individually. Andrwsc 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1. As I mentioned, any flag icons used in disputed birth/death senario, can and should be decided on a case by case basis, if a flag is agreed not to be viable it shouldn't be used. Are you working on the assumption that such disputes if and when they crop up are impossible to resolve? In any case, I don't think the reason you've given is a strong enough reason for a complete National flag icon ban; should we just abandon everything that may or may not cause a dispute?
2. Bruce Willis was BORN in Germany (the infobox states this clearly), so his place of birth is correctly shown as Germany, no dispute so far, so why then is there now a dispute if a German flag (that is there to represent the country Germany) is added? It is not a disputed place of birth, it does not change his nationality. The body of the article is the place to make any explanations ie that he was born on a US Army base. The infobox is far too small to go into a long detailed explanation.
3. I disagree with your assumption (or is it POV?) that people assume a place of birth somehow then becomes someones nationality (or is that only if a flag is also added)? In any case, to wrongly assume a national flag denotes nationality is not a valid reason for a ban. If it is, are we not then pandering to reader's ignorance? Are we just brushing the issue (real or perceived) "under the carpet" by then censoring all flag icons? Lastly have I answered your questions? Can you now answer mine above? Sue Wallace 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


If it does not represent an individual, then why put it in an individual's infobox? Seems weird. Cop 663 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not? It represents the country, in that case why have the question in the infobox in the first place if we dont need to know someones place of birth or death or a band origin? Sue Wallace 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sue, it's because words can express complexity. Flags can't. With the Rolling Stones, you can say they come from "England, UK". Simple; no-one would object to that. But with a flag, you have to choose one (OK, you could have both, but it looks silly). So it has to be England or UK. And then you annoy people (you annoy English nationalists or you annoy people who are proud to be British). It's the act of choosing one, single flag to appear glaringly in someone's infobox that causes disruption, debate and aggro because it makes things look simpler than they actually are. Take the flag away and the problem goes too.Cop 663 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm. where is the complexity of stating that the rock group The Rolling Stones was formed or originated in England? If the WORD England does not annoy why then should the flag to represent England? Sue Wallace 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's complex because London is the capital of the UK, not just a city in England. It's complex because London has a flag too - why use the country's flag not the 'more accurate' one of the city? If the word annoys, you can simply add a comma and 'UK', as I said. You can't do that with the flag. Cop 663 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sue this request has been asked many times of you and you've ignored it , give one good reason why a flag should be included , give one good example where a flag is clearer than words (Gnevin 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
Since you ignored it the first time i'll repeat myself ! Sue this request has been asked many times of you and you've ignored it , give one good reason why a flag should be included , give one good example where a flag is clearer than words (Gnevin 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC))


Here it is again for you Gnevin

In answer to the question.
A (optional) small, discreet, visual representation of a National flag in the form of a (flag icon) in a infobox - showing a place of birth (or death) alongside and in compliment to the country name is for me - "at a glance" information - without having to read a whole sentence - it is also arguably educational and for someone with an interest in geography and different contries, especially with lesser known National flags perhaps the starting point of curiosity and further investigation. And I never said it was a SUBSTITUTE for words, it is in COMPLIMENT to the country name. I disagree with you that it is not necessary, I disagree that a flag constitutes a person's nationality or identity in any way when used as I have mentioned. I disagree that any occasional disputes that arise cannot be resolved. I disagree that it "clutters" an infobox. I disagree that a HISTORICAL national flag HAS to be used for "accuracy" it's accuracy of use is based on the country name that it accompanies in the infobox. Sue Wallace 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's complex? Only because you and some others are making it so. Band origin: London, England, (England flag icon) - whether this flag icon is shown or a Union Jack flag icon - makes no difference to me, other than I argue the England flag is more accurate geographically. Does this genuinely confuse you? Are you seriously suggesting that a "London flag" should be used because it is more accurate? BTW that is a flag of the City of London, does it represent the whole of London or just the City of London district? Regardless of what flag is used, it still doesn't represent Nationality. Sue Wallace 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's confusing. I'm saying it's divisive - because it makes their origin look more important than everything else about them. It says the Rolling Stones are from ENGLAND!!! It makes the article look like it's showing off about the fact that ENG-ER-LAND produced a band as cool as the Stones. There's nothing wrong with saying they're from England. But why do we have to say they're from 'ENGLAND!!!' And I don't care if you think the flag has nothing to do with the actual band itself. To somebody who can't read your mind it looks like you're trying to say the band is ENGLISH!!! (And the same is true if you make them look BRITISH!!! or like LONDONERS!!! - it just ends up looking like smug nationalism whatever the intention might be).
Which once again begs the question ... why is the flag necessary? Cop 663 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How is a word of 3 or 4 a whole sentence ? Words are the best visual representation of place of birth or death . Flag does convey a mean to a persons identity as some flag as so loaded like the flag of northern flag the people can assume meaning from them. Still no example of for x person the flag adds to the article in a way that removing it words could not convey . Gnevin 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop moving your edits around?

Who posted this? please WP:Sign, i moved my edit to help the flow as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice as removed the duplicate text below to help the follow (Gnevin 23:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
The comment was made by Sue in this edit.[8] Sue has a habit of including blank lines between her paragraphs. I'm assuming your deletion of the remainder of her comment was an accident though.[9] --Bobblehead (rants) 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is again for you Gnevin

In answer to the question.
A (optional) small, discreet, visual representation of a National flag in the form of a (flag icon) in a infobox - showing a place of birth (or death) alongside and in compliment to the country name is for me - "at a glance" information - without having to read a whole sentence - it is also arguably educational and for someone with an interest in geography and different contries, especially with lesser known National flags perhaps the starting point of curiosity and further investigation. And I never said it was a SUBSTITUTE for words, it is in COMPLIMENT to the country name. I disagree with you that it is not necessary, I disagree that a flag constitutes a person's nationality or identity in any way when used as I have mentioned. I disagree that any occasional disputes that arise cannot be resolved. I disagree that it "clutters" an infobox. I disagree that a HISTORICAL national flag HAS to be used for "accuracy" it's accuracy of use is based on the country name that it accompanies in the infobox. Sue Wallace 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cop 663 You're saying a National flag is divisive? You're clearly implying racism/superiority? This is pure POV! You are making assumptions, and also not assuming good faith. So (by adding a National flag) (I quote): The article says this band is from ENG-ER-LAND OR ENGLAND if it is written that way. ENG-ER-LAND, ENGLAND, - It makes the article look like it's showing off about the fact that ENG-ER-LAND produced a band as cool as the Stones. There's nothing wrong with saying they're from England. But why do we have to say they're from ENGLAND!!! unquote Where does the article say that? or imply that in any way shape or form? What, just by the inclusion of a small National flag it says that! So Jim Carreys article implies, HEY IM JIM CARREY IM SO GREAT COS IM FROM CANADA, CAN-A-DA, only CANADA could produce such a cool actor comedian such as Jim Carrey!!!!!!! or Woody Allen is the GREATEST ACTOR he is super cool because he comes from AM-ER-ICA he is AMERICAN!!!!!! So apparently all National flags are racist? Is this even a valid argument you've put?

Is a National flag being shown as part of a birth/death/origin fundamentally being racist? Sue Wallace 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

National flags can be divisive not all are . I dont think anyone here claimed a flag implys being a racist ,but some of these Flags of the Confederate States of America may. Flags add unneed weight on nationality which the worlds don't .Flags imply an alot , for example the Union Jack might be considered just that a flag ,for Irish nationalists it can be considered the butchers apron and to use it the likes of Gerry Adams would cause a world of trouble Gnevin 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
They're not racist, but they can be nationalistic (not the same thing). The point is, why are you keen to give England a logo, but not other things in the infobox? The Rolling Stones infobox lists the band's record labels; why not put mini-logos of them in the box Image:Deccablacklogo.gif like this so that people can learn something about record label logos? The Jim Carrey box lists the awards he's won - why not provide little symbols of them Image:GOLDENGLOBE.jpg like this, so that people can learn about award trophies? If all those things were there (maybe in an infobox like this one) I might be persuaded to accept the flag as just another educational symbol. But on its own it over-emphasizes nationality. Cop 663 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with any proposed mass deletion of flag icons; it would stink of common sense and be a rare and refreshing move away from gimmickry. Thank you for bringing this matter back to my attention; I'd hate to see common sense (etc.) trampled by some tiny minority of flag nuts.

Emotive language can cut both ways, as you can see.

So what's this "censorship"? If Michael Jagger comes from England, you can still say so using graphemes. If you can no longer pimp [I use the term for its decorative rather than transactional meaning] this assertion with a little SVG, just what information has been "censored"?

I suggest cooling down a little. -- Hoary 00:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So am I right in thinking that what this debate really boils down to is we cannot use any country's National flag as part of an article's factually correct place of birth or pace of death (or origin as in a band/group), because it might offend someone, because they wrongly assume that a National flag added to the country name suddenly changes someones identity, their very culture or gives a perceived superiority? A tiny flag icon, which some say can't even be seen anyway? Really? So, we must brush the problem under the carpet by pushing through a complete ban on flag icons instead of actually addressing the facts and making people aware of the facts? Why, Because it's easier? Isn't it a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water? Isn't this whole issue being blown way out of proportion? Gnevin you give an extreme case Gerry Adams as an example. I doubt if just the flag icon has been a bone of contention with his article has it? Was the deletion of the article ever considered because of disputes? Just wondered. As I mentioned before, I can't see any reason why disputes and ambiguities cannot be worked out on a case by case basis. This proposed policy of a complete ban is a form of censorship imo, and something that should if possible be avoided at all cost, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

Issues I have with statements made on this talk page:
1. Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. This statement is fundamentally incorrect.
2. "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" this is also a factually incorrect statement when used in the context of a National flag in place birth/death/origin. Sue Wallace 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sticking to facts, you all seem to be quoting a personal POV in order to make a point. You know what, do what you like, cos you will anyway, hell, some already are anyway! Sue Wallace 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sue, you're responses seem to be getting more heated as you respond to the arguments presented here. Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard for awhile. As you can tell from the responses you are receiving here, your arguments and opposition is not working to "convert" anyone and the arguments and support others are presenting is not "converting" you. If you feel that this proposed guideline is not getting enough attention from Wikipedia at large, you are more than welcome to post a request for additional common on the village pump and direct additional attention to this page. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing more gasoline on the fire (which I'm not trying to do), I'd like to comment specifically on one part of Sue's position. She states that flag icons are "discreet". I think the prevailing opinion here is precisely the opposite. One or two flag icons in an infobox are visual splashes of color that attract undue attention. It's stronger than if the birth and death location rows in those tables were given the HTML <big> tag, for example. I assert that the best usage of flag icons is when browsing long lists of country-related items — in other words, on lists or tables where there are lots of flag icons. Singular instances, such as many of the examples listed here, create more problems than they solve. Andrwsc 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what is said above. I even welcome Sue's robust defence of what she thinks is best for Wikipedia, although I don't agree with it. I recognise the existence of "graphical thinkers", for whom information is easier to take in if a suitable visual aid is provided; I just think that this encyclopedia should not cater explicitly to this group in this way. Using flags over-simplifies nationality in so many ways, and causes so much sterile squabbling (see Gibraltar for a fairly recent edit war, over which flag icons to use in the twin cities section), that I conclude that their net effect on the project is negative in almost all infobox uses. Valid exceptions to this may be sporting, government and military articles, because there the subject of the article is very likely to have verifiably affiliated themselves with a particular country. Again, sorry to be tedious, but if the best arguments in favour of using flags without any restriction are "I like them" and "They're not doing any harm" (and they seem to be), it seems there is no good case for maintaining the status quo. It reminds me of the furore over the spoiler template; people had got into the habit of using them, but when their use was challenged it became evident there was no real case to keep them. And they went. --John 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sue Wallace, to answer your points as best I can;

1. Why are only extreme and unusual examples used when 99% of articles have no controversy?

A.Because it's those articles that cause all the fuss and disruption.

2. If disputes occur where there is genuine ambiguity they should be dealt with on an individual basis, isn't that one of the reasons for admin.? I think it's wrong to issue a blanket ban using this as a basis.

A. It's not the job of an admin to make a decision of that nature. Consensus is what makes the decision and admins may hold different opinions. Sure you could go page by page and rehash the discussion but it's much easier to do it in one location.

3, 4 & 5 are all tied together.

A. I understand that you don't see the flag as an indication of nationality but there are a lot of people who do. Look at Bobby Sands. Born in 1954 so he should have the Ulster Banner or the Union Flag as he was born in Northern Ireland but as an Irish republican he would be more associated with the Flag of Ireland and putting any of those in the infobox is an indication of nationality. Flags are a visible symbol of nationality for a lot of people.

6. So are some getting the fundamentals of this argument confused?

A. I can't really answer that.

7. Are some complicating the issue unnecessary, either intentionally or unintentionally?

A. No I don't think so. The issue is complex as I pointed out with the Bobby Sands article and can be applied to others such as Montxo Armendáriz a Basque/Spanish screenwriter. On the other hand the issue is not complex if you look at George W. Bush.

8. Is removal of editors edits when there is no policy in place to assert that removal, a form of POV cyber-bullying?

A. Depends on how the removal is done. I remove flags without referring to this page while others may see this page as providing a consensus to remove them. If the removal is done in such a way that indicates this page is a policy then yes. But as putting the flag in is often seen as a declaration of nationality (and there is also no policy to say that flags should be there) then that may also appear as a form of POV.

9. Is it incorrect to state that flag icon use is now redundant?

A. No it's not there are places for the use of flag icons and Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Current squad (other teams work as well) is a place where they do work well and few people seem to have problems with that useage. Anybody think that List of Basques is a good use of flag icons?

10. Since it is others who are requesting something to be made policy shouldn't the emphasis be on them to prove a burden of proof - rather than the other way around?

A. I think Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles is providing that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say on any of this (now moribund) thread is that we clearly have consensus on "don't use flags for birth/death" and "don't rewrite history". Using a modern Canada flag for Jim Carrey's birth would violate both of those, but the first makes the point moot, and clealy demonstrates why birth/death flags are pointless. Disputes below about whether nationality or citizenship should be used in infoboxes aside, in either case Carrey would get the modern Canadian flag (if any), Hitler could get the Nazi flag (after all he, literally stood for that nation-state and its political system, created it, and died with it), someone who was a living German at the time of WW2 and died before the reunification of Germany probably should not get any flag, because the issue is too confused (Were they pro-Nazi? Were they born in pre-Nazi Germany? Were they in East Germany by trying to escape to West Germany? Were they in West Germany and happy to be there but moved to East Germany to be with family despite preferring West Germany? Etc., etc.); a flag simply won't be useful to the reader here. A German serving in the Nazi military, as almost all eligible German men of the era did, but who survives in modern reunified Germany could get the modern German flag but would not get a Nazi flag, as that would be a POV assertion about their political beliefs and/or how the person should be "labelled". And so on. There is no script that can be written to decide who should or should not have their nationality or citizenship identified with what flag if any; it takes actual human judgement. Anyway, I'm marking this thread as "Stale", since the rambling, unfocused, rancorous debate has (thankfully!) died. Whatever genuine issues remaining from the above are still on someone's mind should be raised in new topics (one subject per topic, I would hope, or it will just turn into another mess) and without hyperbole about "censorship", unless someone has evidence to present of a conspiratorial government agency editing infoboxes on Wikipedia, eh? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments on proposal

Resolved
 – Proposal period concluded; new issues should be raised in new topic threads.

There was a notice on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but no obvious place to comment. Has this been proposed in any formal way? Based on a quick look I don't see anything necessary, useful, or redeeming about this proposal. Given the proliferation of new policies and guidelines on so many subjects we have to be very cautious about what is really worth making rules about. I'm not aware of any significant problem with flag use, just the occasional stylistic question of how to write an article, infobox or other template, etc. Flags are useful some places, less useful in others, so why not leave that up to people to decide in good faith in the regular editorial process? There also seems to be some agenda-ish purpose behind the policy, which if true is not a good thing.Wikidemo 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it has already been decided, admin. John and others, are already deleting flags en masse quoting rem redundant flag in the article revision history - these articles are not the many "controversial" or "extreme" type ones mentioned by some on here btw. Funnily enough a matter of just hours after his last post on here John decided to edit an article I happen to have had a lot of input on (Small Faces) he deleted images (with no warnings) oh and removed the flag icon - he has never edited this article before. Obviously, it must be a co-incidence and nothing to do with my disagreements on here yesterday, I will assume "good faith". Sue Wallace 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The proliferation of inapropriate flag icons on Wikipedia is a huge problem. If you haven't noticed this, I imagine it's because you don't edit that many biographical articles. This guideline is very much needed. I assure you there is no agenda behind this guideline, it is simply an effort to re-enforce good editing practices that are already established. Please don't start unfounded rumors about efforts made in good faith. Kaldari 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is why we need this guideline. Kaldari 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still don't believe the arguments justify a complete ban on flags in articles. The arguments put are, in some cases, actually quite offensive, POV, and appear to lack assumed good faith, while others base their arguments on falsely assuming that a country's national flag = nationality and the flag is therefore likely to be offensive or a POV, (regardless of the context in which the flag is used). There is also an assumption that for complete accuracy, historial flags must be used, even though the same argument shows this to be unworkable, eg. as discussed above Jim Carrey is not allowed a Canadian flag to visually show he was born in Canada - in fact he's not allowed a Canadian flag, period, because it is apparently perceived that if a country's flag is added it is seen as showing off, that the country and or person/s are somehow better than everyone else. Genuine disputes and abiguities do pop up but I believe these can be settled on a case by case basis, presumably as they are at the moment, eg. Gerry Adams but in this eg. it's not just going to be a flag that is argued about anyway; there are always going to be arguments about political figures whether there is a flag or not, I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence I guess a lot of people will have read it too. Is this flag ban something to do with that? If an outright ban policy is introduced and implemented I will go along with it. But before we get to that stage, the policy proposals should imo be discussed with a wider spectrum of editors than has so far. Finally, I strongly object on the grounds of fairness and playing by the rules those who are already deleting flag icons before the ban is agreed. The swift deletion of a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name in the place of birth in an infobox is declared as Flagcruft, flagcruft? Pull the other one! Or removal cited as "removal of a redundant flag", redundant? Do they know something we dont know? Is this policy already as good as signed and sealed? If so, what is the point of this talk page? Sue Wallace 06:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
SW sez: Others base their arguments on falsely assuming that a country's national flag = nationality and the flag is therefore likely to be offensive or a POV, (regardless of the context in which the flag is used). I'd make that: Others base their arguments on the likelihood that accompaniment by a flag will be taken to imply not only nationality but conscious allegiance; since (a) a substantial number of biographees clearly reject(ed) the flags of their nationalities, (b) a large number of them did/do not clearly show the allegiance that the flag may imply, it seems better to limit flag use to clearcut cases of allegiance (e.g. membership of national sports teams. ¶ SW sez: The swift deletion of a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name in the place of birth in an infobox is declared as Flagcruft, flagcruft? Pull the other one! What's done "correctly" in one editor's view isn't necessarily done "correctly" in another's. I'll pull the other one and call it "flaggimmickry" (if not worse). ¶ I understand that you regard removal of flags as "censorship", unfair, and not playing by the (unspecified) rules, but I still don't understand what your argument for most flag use is. -- Hoary 07:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sue, surely you can't deny that, in your words, "a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name" is redundant? It's redundant because it doesn't add any extra information. The opposite of redundant is 'necessary'. Are you saying that the flag you describe is 'necessary'? If so, why? Cop 663 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The places of birth or death are relatively minor and not that interesting biographic informations. Placing flags on these fields adds undue weight to these fields. What I am most interested in is the nationality of a person and having a flag here really aids in getting a quick overview. This should be no problem at all for contemporary persons. Cacycle 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
But you can't show and explain the nationality with just a flag. Look at Gerry Adams born in Belfast. As an Irish Republican what flag would fit there? As was pointed out above, Bruce Willis was born in Germany so it would look a little odd having a US flag next to name of the country. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Well, this question is actually about whether there should be a 'nationality' section in bio-infoboxes in addition to 'the place of birth' section. It's a good question, and while in theory, it's outside the remit of this proposed guideline, in fact most of the flag troubles are caused when a person's place of birth is different from their nationality (as in the examples you note). Cop 663 19:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In the articles I edit normally, the infoboxes are pretty small for people, eg. Jennifer Aniston, and there is no nationality indicated. I dont think nationalities should be added to infoboxes, the nationality might not be straightforward and cannot be explained in a small infobox, it should be explained properly in the body of the article. Cop 663 maybe that is one of the reasons for this flag=nationality misconception causing conflict, for eg. a reader goes to on an article that has a full biography of a person, they see a country flag used to symbolise the nationality in the infobox, afterwards they click on an article about an actor, and they see a flag and assume it is there not as part of the place of birth symbolising only the country in this case but they see it as indicating a nationality or hinting at a nationality? Also maybe an editor who creates biographies uses a flag as part of the nationality, that editor then goes to another article say of a band or actor, sees the flag being used in relation to the country only and assumes it is hinting at a nationality? Like I say, this debate seems based on assumptions, it's not the flag that is at fault, a flag is not ambiguous, its people's pre-conceived ideas that are. Sue Wallace 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's exactly the problem: since the infoboxes don't have a 'nationality' section, a visually striking flag in the 'place of birth' section may cause the casual reader to assume that the flag is representing nationality. I agree that this is about reader assumptions, but it seems to me a natural assumption for a reader to make. Certainly the flag itself is not at fault, but the person who put it there is at fault, for not thinking about other readers and the possibility of misleading them. And since the flag is not necessary, just an added decoration, it's better to get rid of it. Cop 663 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think there should be a citizenship field in infoboxes and this field should have a flag for contemporary persons. Citizenship is non-ambiguous and as such prevents any nationalistic POV pushing (being born in Germany does not make Bruce Willis a German citizen). Citizenship flags are a great orientation aid if you land on a bio article. I consider flags on other fields as unnecessary and distracting. Cacycle 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this [10] together with a perusal of the discussion on the talk page can show that flags are not the issue and banning them will not solve the problem. Sue Wallace 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur with Sue Wallace and various others on this thread and some of the ones above, that people who just seem to totally loathe flag icons are taking their arguments too far, and relying on emotive "testimony". Pointing to a particularly hideous article that overuses flag icons is not evidentiary that all use of flag icons (including in infoboxes) is objectively, or is by system-wide consensus held subjectively to be, hideous, or wrong, or misleading, or anything else. What some here label increasing abuse of flag icons is, from another viewpoint, simply increasing use, i.e. evidence of growing consensus that flag icons are just fine. (On the other hand, some uses are clearly ab- or misuses, so this proposal does have a reason to lay down some common sense rules of thumb about flag and especially flag icons). I hold a middle-ground position and the purpose of this document should be to hold a middle-ground position that represents general consensus as best as it can be determined. Neither a extremist position to ban all usage of flag icons other than in sports-related tables, nor an equally extremist position that flag icons can and should be inserted all over the place. The sooner we stop arguing extremist positions and working on solidifying what everyone can agree on, the more likely this page will be to actually become anything but {{Rejected}}, which is where it is clearly heading, as I've been warning for over a month, and the faster it will actually become recognized as a guideline when it doesn't fall on its face because of mutually antagonistic extremist b.s. being flung back and forth. Frankly, the lack of progress here is dismally disappointing. Flag fans need to just darned well recognize that there is not and will never be a consensus that they can stick flag icons all over the place, willy-nilly, and that a clear and just about unanimous consensus, among those participating in the debate so far, has already emerged and solidified that they absolutely should not be used for birth/death place, because this can be grossly misleading in too many cases (please not that part carefully, Sue Wallace). Flag critics equally need to recognize that their logic that because flags on a few pages can cause problems, and in a few other cases have been overuses to silly extremes, that flags should not be used at all, isn't convincing anyone. Both entrenched camps: Please just get over the fact that you aren't going to get every single thing you want, and work with each other to arrive at something both sides can live with, or all of this will simply have been months of wasted time. PS: This is not the place for a broader discussion of whether bio infoboxes should address nationality at all. That should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. This proposal assumes, as it must, that because most bio infoboxes, including the meta-version at Template:Infobox person, have such a template field that there is already at least a loose consensus to have such a field (pretty much by definition, since it wouldn't be there otherwise). It is clear that some flagicon opponents disagree with that whole idea, and are effectively holding this proposal hostage by filibustering attempts to have it address what to do with infoboxes, instead of trying to change consensus on what is and is not appropriate in bio infoboxes to begin with. It is a version of what WP:CONSENSUS condemns as "forum shopping". This is not the right venue to oppose any mention of nationality in infoboxes. Some opponents of flagicons in infoboxes raise other concerns, but most of them do appear to heavily rely upon one version or another of the "infoboxes should not address nationality" theory, which simply is not relevant here. This is not a proposal about Wikipedia definition of "nationality" or whether to even attempt to classify people that way. We already do classify people that way and if some of us want to change that, they should take it up at the biography project or more broadly as WP:VPP if they find they are not getting any traction at the project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad there are a few on here that can see past the POV distorting this whole flag issue. The only thing I disagree with you on is the birth/death flag ban, but in any case, I welcome your views. Sue Wallace 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You do make some reasonable points, but I question two ingredients. First, there's mention of comments by people who just seem to totally loathe flag icons. Can you name one or two of these people? How about me, for example? But I don't totally loathe all flag icons; I've said that they're actually helpful in some cases. I think few people here who have disagreed strongly with what you claim to be a middle-ground position totally loathe flag items. However, some of them may loathe some very common uses of flag icons, and rather dislike any impression that their views are being distorted for rhetorical effect. Secondly, What some here label increasing abuse of flag icons is, from another viewpoint, simply increasing use, i.e. evidence of growing consensus that flag icons are just fine. You do seem to subscribe to this "consensus". We can agree, I think, that flag icons constitute additions to articles. Adding them breaks no rules. Deleting them can bring howls of "removing information", "removing visual help" or worse. Gradual addition of flag icons may indeed reflect "consensus" (in the strange WP sense of the word), but I rather suppose that it instead reflects the WP's tendency toward accretion. Flag icons, infoboxes, trivia ("in popular culture") sections: all are much easier to add than to remove. But WP has the guideline Wikipedia:Trivia sections, which does not say "It's obvious that WP editors love trivia, so go ahead and add it to more articles, just don't go overboard"; and in my opinion would benefit from a guideline about flag icons that was modeled on Wikipedia:Trivia sections, with a similar concern for what is helpful in creating good encyclopedia articles and a similar willingness to criticize the habits of a lot of editors. -- Hoary 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent comparison. Sometimes a "consensus" like this that has emerged other than by discussion has to be properly discussed. Spoiler tags and trivia sections were so common as to constitute a "consensus" (in SMcCandlish's sense of the word), but were then removed or greatly cut down because it emerged there was no encyclopedic reason to keep them. --John 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Trivia sections are still widespread but will never be encyclopedic.--Boffob 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but they are definitely on the ebb. I try to integrate and delete four or five a day myself. --John 02:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am misinterpreting some parties here as being more anti-flagicon than they really are. I too feel misinterpreted here. I've invested a lot of time and energy in working on this, including strong deprecation of certain (ab/mis)uses of flag icons, so it's not like I'm a big booster of them. Where I am coming from is that a huge pile of editors do like them, for certain uses. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but we do have very widespread distribution of flag icons throughout the encyclopedia. I observe that nearly all editors who've thought about the matter and cared to comment on it (there are exceptions, including one today) agree that using them for birth/death place is often worse than pointless. I observe also that there seems to be general agreement that an infoboox (or anything else for that matter) festooned with a flag in every conceivable place one could appear is a bad idea, and we have examples in the proposal of particularly silly orgies of flagiconitis - examples that have survived almost the entire life-so-far of this document. No big issue then. What else I see is that a particular viewpoint expressed in various specific ways here is just generally opposed (sometimes entirely, sometimes with sports exceptions) to using flagicons especially in infoboxes, on the basis that they are "nonencyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" (depending on dialect), yet they appear to be dwarfed by the general editorship, who have (by flagicon opponents' own statistics) apparently not had an issue with at least one flagicon appearing in approximately 20% of all bio articles on Wikipedia, up from nearly zero a year ago. I'm concerned that a few individual editors' ire about some drastic abuses (cases which we mock in the proposal itself), coupled with some over-extended unease about borderline cases causing conflict, has led to a stance against flagicons that doesn't represent the community's actual aggregate feelings about the matter, but one of two extremes (the other represented by the abuses we have pilloried.) I do no believe that the spoiler comparison is a good one. The saturation level of spoiler warnings was nowhere near this level of deployment. Just from my own memory, I think that about a year ago (as opposed to now, when they are almost all gone) I did not see spoiler warnings on more than about one or two out of 20 film/book/comic/whatever articles, and they already seemed to be declining, not increasing, entirely without there being anyone organizing against them (i.e., people just saw that the section was called "Plot" and intuited that a spoiler warning was redundant there, and removed it, without there being any draft guideline on the matter). This issue seems more complex to me than that, and far more involving of large numbers of editors than the spoiler matter was. Trivia sections are also not comparable, as their genesis is radically different. Trivia sections are common on WP articles, especially about films, TV shows, actors and the like, because most such articles begin as blatant copyvios, copy-pasted verbatim from IMDb. To a very small extent their existence in such articles has caused the spread of these trivia sections to some independent articles, but the trend as noted is reversing itself. The nature of that issue and this one are in no way related or comparable, and it's not even really an issue at all any longer. In closing, I would not have spent so much time on this [I think someone accused me of WP:OWN a few weeks ago for bringing that up, but the point is my time and brainpower investment, i.e. that I give a darn, not that this is "mine" in any way; just to be clear] if I did not agree with everyone else here (I think) that there are some problems and pitfalls associated with flagicons and flags more generally. I just think that the proposal as it stands covers them pretty adequately, and I get the feeling that some others here do not and want it to be far more negative toward them (and evidence suggests that there are others, who have not spoken here but have certainly edited articles in such as way, who want to deploy far more flagicons). I'm not trying to "represent" consensus, I just hope to be able to help describe what the balance of consensus is. I think that's the only thing this proposal can legitimately achieve. In short, I am seeing (maybe correctly maybe incorrectly) a conflict between "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and WP:CONSENSUS's clear observation that a small group of internally-unanimous editors cannot possibly trump the flow of the community-at-large. Our "job" here needs to be figuring out where those two forces rub together and create a boundary we can write down. I am fairly satisfied with the line drawn right now (minus a few nitpicks I'd like to reinsert, but which won't have any overall impact on the tone or direction), but again, I can't speak for anyone but me.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with this proposed guideline?

Resolved
 – Proposal period concluded; new issues should be raised in new topic threads.

We have a big message from SMcCandlish above, who has worked hard on improving this project, but is concerned that it is doomed to be rejected due to 'extremism'. However, most of the 'extremism' he is referring to seems to be on the talk page rather than in the proposed policy itself, which looks pretty middle of the road to me. So let's do something positive here. Read the policy carefully, and then write in the space below what, in your opinion, you find unacceptable. And if you think it's perfect, say so too. Once we have a list of possible problems, we can work on them in a constructive way.Cop 663 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Make that two big messages from me. I've been accused of vacillating between monosyllabically dismissive and vociferously tumid; if I'm being the latter it means I care. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no problems. Seriously, I've read the policy through and everything seems like common sense. It doesn't seem extremist, it doesn't seem 'anti-flag' or 'pro-flag', just sensible. Cop 663 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The only problem I see with this proposed guideline is that it has a lot of instruction creep, i.e. it could be significantly simplified without loosing the salient points. Other than that, I think it is the best thing since sliced bread and I pray for the day, some time in the next century I hope, that this guideline can be officially instituted. Kaldari 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to be critical, but I still think it needs to be "tightened up" to be of the quality that a Wikipedia guideline needs to be. For example, I think the section "Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations" is redundant with the previous section. (The use of the Northern Ireland flag should be limited to representative sporting situations only, and we should be able to express that thought without as much commentary as now exists.) Ideally, the seven bullet points in the introductory summary section would be supported by a couple of sentences each (at most), and that would suffice. I do realize that kind of copyediting can be very difficult! Andrwsc 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but the two different mentions of the N.I. flag serve different purposes. While the language can certainly be tightened, what we probably need is for one of the mentions of the Ulster Banner to be replaced by a completely different example. The two points we are trying to make are (if I recall correctly) that a) certain flags only have certain legitimate uses, and b) some flags are too over-politicized to use in most situations; maybe the Nazi Germany flag is a good substitute for the latter case? I would not want to lose the example that the U.B. is legitimately used for modern sporting purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Cop 663 you say, the proposed policy itself, looks pretty middle of the road. I very much refute that opinion, the policy looks to me like the only time a flag can be used unchallenged is in a table/list. Also, almost the first line of the policy (summary) we come to states: Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. Well, this rule is based on a form of clear POV, there are flag-haters here who believe virtually all use is "decorative". Flag use is subjective, I could think a flag is useful to ME and maybe some others but another editor can justify deleting it saying it is decorative, (as happens now) - think it's called "horses for courses". Sue Wallace 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, that's something we need to work on. Cop 663 02:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Sue Wallace 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue has been raised before. I raised it, but did it in an impolitic way and got understandably bitten back for it, but I think the concern remains valid, especially in terms of visual vs. verbal thinkers (I supported that point, two months ago or whenever, but did not originate it). The super-short version is that graphics are helpful to some readers, for whom an infobox consisting of nothing but dense text is simply "noise" they auto-ignore. I doubt I need to defend the idea much, given that we are saturated by imagery from every direction in modern life; if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. Probably worth a topic here of its own, but I wouldn't want it to hold up moving forward. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem. It does a fantastic job of explaining itself, which I wish could be spread to other guideline/policy pages. Nifboy 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above concerns about wordiness, but with the strong caveat that no important points be lost in the tightening process (it is one thing to remove an example of a principle and quite another to remove the principle itself). I would like to see restoration of a few such principles (in the form of probably a sentence apiece) lost in the shuffle of Centrx's major and otherwise pretty darned useful paring operation a while back. Even without them, I am confident in the extant draft more than I thought I would be, thanks to Cop 663's observation that while the debate on the talk page has been polarized the document itself remains rather centralist. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I took out "Avoiding the use of flags with controversial political connotations, such as the Ulster Banner and the Nazi swastika." These flags do have particular problems associated with their use, but (unless we are going to ban all flags) there are instances where they are definitely appropriate, as the policy explains. --John 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If I may be so bold: IMO, the proposal could be easier to follow. The summary is quite helpful, but it's very helpful precisely in proportion to the difficulty of the rest of the (much-needed and very thorough) proposal. Rather than suggesting edits, deletions, or merging sections, I'd like to propose an outline & a standard format. The outline would be (A) summary, (B) general issue, rationales, & what it applies to (flags, logos, whatnot), (C) use scenarios: (C-1) favored uses (e.g., tables with many flags for sports); (C-2) disfavored uses (e.g., infoboxes). Within each use scenario the format would be: Description of use; short rationale about the problems of that use; examples, positive and negative as needed, of that use. ... We've already got this kind of format in some places, but in other places the rationales and discussions are spread about and separated from the use scenarios. And doing a clean re-structuring could help pull out any obvious redundancies, as well as pinpoint and quarantine any controversial "favored" / "disfavored" recommendations.
Obviously, I'm coming in after a lot of time and effort has already been expended, so I apologize if I'm rehashing old ground / issues. I'd just like to get this kick-started because (of course) I've been noticing a lot of flags popping up in obtrusive and unhelpful ways on articles I keep an eye out for. This guideline is much needed and all the careful thought and planning and discussion that has gone on so far could really benefit the community and the encyclopedia if we could get it approved! --lquilter 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Useful, not decorative'

Unresolved
 – Some ideas for improvement brought up here seem to have some traction, but perhaps need to be individually proposed to gain consensus.
This is just a suggestion off the top of my head but couldn't this statement "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." be written more along these lines:
Flag images should be used sparingly.
Flag images should not be added where inclusion is likely to cause controversy.

Together with linked examples showing acceptable and unacceptable uses and to show controversial uses maybe link examples like Gerry Adams, Bruce Willis. I think this would reduce ambiguities and show more clearly what is acceptable and not acceptable. Also Andrwsc mentioned that flag icons could be linked directly to the main article on the country/region etc. I think that would be great if that could be done. Sue Wallace 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note, but changes to the technical functionality of the flagicon templates is out-of-scope here, and should be brought up at WT:WPFT instead. If you propose making the flag images themselves link directly to country articles, expect resistance; WP links images to larger versions of the images for a reason, and few undoings of that functionality go over well here. Nothing to say right now about the wording change proposed. I'm trying to minimize my participation on this page a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that all material included in the encyclopedia we are jointly writing should be:
This proposed policy is merely an attempt to ensure that the use of flags conforms to these core principles. At the moment, generally speaking, it does not. --John 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sue, I think we need something stronger than your suggestion, but perhaps the current statement isn't quite right either. I think what is needed is a statement about the intent of flag icon usage. I believe that they are most effective when they serve as a navigational aid when browsing a list or table of country-representative items. That idea (or similar) needs to be captured. I think the current comment about being "merely decorative" is a similar idea, but is written as a negative instead of as a positive. Andrwsc 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Stronger? Are you asking me to make the policy as it stands even more restrictive? As it stands, the way the policy is written, the flag can only be used in some tables and lists. Aside from that, the problem I have with that statement "merely decorative" is it's completely and utterly subjective and open to individual interpretation, which is leading to edit wars/arguments, in fact, I'll go as far as to say it's use in the policy only seems to be to ensure that no possible loophole for it's use is left open! I think it should be scrapped altogether, there are plenty of examples of misuse/inappropriate use further down the policy page. Instead it could state: Flags may only be used for infoboxes, tables and lists. (appropriate/inappropriate use examples below). The flag's intent is to visually aid the reader by representing (in the form of a small icon) the country that it is used in conjunction with as an official national symbol. Sue Wallace 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't read my comment carefully. I wrote "stronger than your suggestion". As for your suggestion of "intent", I think it is too loose — it would permit the usage of a flag icon next to a country name in prose text. Andrwsc 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by this "Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article, including in the lead section." I'm only discussing the "decorative section" that is all. Sue Wallace 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Perhaps we have both misread each others thoughts here! I still think we need something specific to discourage the "it looks nice" rationale that I have seen on hundreds of articles. As John stated, it needs to be "useful to the reader", but that is a highly subjective statement. I've got my own idea of what I think is "useful", as I suspect you do too. I guess I'm looking for a more precise definition of "useful to the reader" that we can get consensus on.
As an aside, Sue, based on my comments on this talk page, would you classify me as a "flag hater"? I'm not trying to stir up trouble! I'm ok with either a yes or no answer to that. I'm just curious to know how my position is perceived. Thanks, Andrwsc 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I think I misunderstood you, which is why I quickly deleted my comments. Can I just say that in reality many editors will not read past the policy summary in most cases (if they're anything like me, just being honest). Also why are  Australia +  New Zealand smaller than  China for e.g., Is this accidental? Also, I don't think you are a flag-hater as such, I just re-read your comments above. Sue Wallace 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
That's probably because the proportions of those flags are officially 1:2.--Boffob 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, some flags are 1:2, many are 2:3, and some are yet again different. The standard flag templates attempt to maintain a common horizontal width of 24 pixels (22 for the flag plus 1 for the border) so that they line up nicely in a vertical list. However, some flags (esp. Switzerland) are excessively tall at 22 pixels wide, so they are also limited to a 20 pixel max. height (plus the border). This seems to be the best compromise for all common flags. Andrwsc 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. I can't see a reasonable way to do anything about that, since widening 1:2 flags to make them the same height would make flag icons in tables no longer line up neatly, vertically. The only way around that would be to redo all of the non-1:2 flags with left and right padding. Anyway, that's a WT:WPFT topic, not a WT:FLAG one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The real answer to this "what is 'useful' " question has to come from existing policies/guidelines, I would say. Where have proponents of "must be useful to the reader" gotten this language, or the concept, from? Anything more specific than WP:ENC? I don't think we're in a position to just invent some new "usefulness" definition that only applies, magically, to flagicons. I don't insist that this is what is happening here either; I'm just saying we need to check ourselves on this and make sure that the proposal fits in with and draws upon extant guiding princples and defined best practices, or it won't be accepted as a guideline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame some of the flags are smaller than the others, esp. when the smaller ones are the same ones that could do with a bit more clarity, as mentioned by some here, also it's a shame they can't be country article/flag linked somehow. Usefulness is an individual opinion, some think images and infoboxes are unnecessary, I don't happen to agree with that. Sue Wallace 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Response to John's three points "useful to the reader, verifiably true, neutral in tone": I've already pointed out that the "useful to the reader" material (though a point I support in theory) needs to be grounded in existing policy. "Verifiably true" is already covered at the "Don't reinvent history" section. "Neutral in tone" doesn't really apply here - flags don't have a tone - but the underlying neutrality concept is already addressed by the section on avoiding political conflict. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the word 'useful' relates to 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. It is undeniably, verifiably true that the flag of Canada is a red-white tricolor with a maple leaf. But sticking an image of that flag into an article on Jim Carrey just because he's Canadian, is arguably 'indiscriminate information' since vexillology is irrelevant to Carrey's life. If that seems extreme, consider a parallel: the article on Jim Carrey says he sometimes attends a Presbyterian Church, so would it be justifiable to add a picture of John Calvin to the article? It is verifiably true that the Presbyterians originate from Calvinism, but adding a picture of him to Carrey's article would be 'indiscriminate', I think; just piling on images with tenuous significance to the actual article. Just a thought. Cop 663 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this page Wikipedia:Practical process very interesting when thinking about this whole policy, certainly rung a few bells for me! Sue Wallace 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "usefulness" is the core point, and a bit more attention could be given to explaining that in the proposal. Cop 663 phrased it well above. It is also helpful to remember that a flag is essentially a logo. To add to Cop 663's Presbyterian example, we wouldn't necessarily add IBM's logo to the page of every IBM employee. Nor the Boy Scout logo/flag to every person who had been through the Boy Scouts, nor the pride flag to every lgbt person. As Sue Wallace has pointed out, it is a visual shortcut, and most editors here agree that it has that quick recognition (for some flags) feature for visually-oriented folks. The question is when is that quick recognition useful or helpful, and when does it run into problems with the need for nuance, implications that are incorrect, and so on. IMO flags might be useful when used in a place where they are very closely tied to what they are representing. For instance, the vast majority of private citizens are not very closely tied to particular flags. Immigration, national history, personal politics, legal status, and so on, all affect what flags might be applicable, and whether they are undue weight. --lquilter 14:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it's related to WP:NPOV as well. Choosing to highlight some things and not others with an eye-catching logo is inevitably POV; it doesn't matter in all situations, but it can be a serious problem in others. Cop 663 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My read of all of the above is that we want all of the following to be clear:

  • Flags should be used sparingly (no particular policy/guideline to cite)
  • Flags should not be added where inclusion is likely to cause controversy (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV)
  • Flags' inclusion should be genuinely useful to the reader (WP:ENC)
  • Flags should be accurately applied, and not rewrite history or confuse anyone (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:ENC, etc., in varying degrees)
  • Flags should not be used to push a point of view (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX)

Are any missing?

From my viewpoint, all of the enumerate points are in fact covered adequately, but some of the invective above got a little thick and hot (no particular criticism intended; you all know I fall into that pit sometimes too!), so I'm not sure that this thread has been adequately resolved. Due to its length and heat, I would suggest that any missing points from the above be summarized here like I did with the ones above, this topic marked {{Resolved}} and the unaddressed points started as new discussions or proposals, one per topic section, so it doesn't get messy again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am a little confused, as I tend to think that the usage of flagicons in article text (being used as links to the country article). Looking over this conversation, I look at the miniaturized flags of Australia and New Zealand, and I don't see a huge difference between the two. As this is the English-language Wikipedia, and there are significant differences between the words 'Australia' and 'New Zealand', I am concerned that policy would be used to influence articles like [International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto this] and this, the latter having had the flags removed. The usage of flags in each article is extreme and over-the-top. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is an article with 2 countries, then 2 flags could be used; an article mentioning 30 countries will have 30 flags. There is no arbitary rule on the maximum amount of countries (or their flags) to be included in an article that may render it "extreme" or "over-the-top". Kapowow (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is, but for the life of me, I cannot recall it. It was something along how many images can be in an article. Granted, we are talking about the relatively small icons of flags, but as images make our eyes stop, especially when they are placed amidst text like a rock in a zen garden, it behooves us to limit the amount of images present in an article. Add to that the problematic issue of flagicons being useless to all but the grossest of comparisons ('hey, the flag of China looks nothing like the flag of Denmark!'), and actually allows for misinterpretations as to the origins of flags to be made ('hey, is that the flag of China, Singapore or the New People's Army?'). Providing a textual link to the article (which is already present in the Bhutto article and the older version of the Fitna article) leaves nothing to interpretation, no slowdown of comprehension and no lag time in readability. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of city flags?

Resolved
 – Proposal was updated to deal with this problem.

I've started to see a marked increase in the usage of city flag icons. Here's a contrived example, but similar to an actual example I've seen — next to Chicago, Illinois, United States, I saw Chicago Illinois United States. What is the purpose of that?

Now, I think that most flags for first-level administrative units (i.e. US states, regions of France, republics of Russia, etc.) are obscure enough, but I can see some limited use for them. For example, the teams in the Canadian curling championships are representative of each provice, so articles like 1999 Labatt Brier use those flag icons appropriately. However, articles like List of town tramway systems in North America use them for every section heading (including completely unrecognizable images for the states of Mexico!), and now I'm seeing articles like British Airways destinations use flags for each US and Canadian city in addition to the state and province flags. Does anybody really think the flag of Tampa, Florida adds to the encyclopedic value of any article other than Tampa, Florida? Do articles like Eau Claire, Calgary really need three little flag icons in the infobox for the country, province, and city?

As the most active maintainer of Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, I am concerned at the potential explosion of flag templates if we start to accept city flags being used widely. There are already over a thousand flag templates that I try to keep up to date. I'd like to see some statement about the accepted scope of flag icons, such as no "deeper" than first-level administrative units, and even use those ones sparingly. I was tempted to nominate all those city flag templates for deletion for precedent reasons, but held off so that we could have some discussion here first. Thanks, Andrwsc 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not gonna like this, but, I have to say I found them interesting, re. British Airways destinations they add visual interest to what would otherwise be an extremely dull list of country names, it's not as if they cause confusion, the city name is stated right next to it. I have never seen any of those US flags before, I think the Arizona flag in particular has a great design. re. Eau Claire, Calgary I thought flags could be used when they are in an article discussing the area? Surely this would be one of the most appropriate places to use them? Sue Wallace 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I should have been a bit clearer: I'm not too fussed about the flag of Arizona being on that list — I'm more concerned about the flag of Phoenix. And yeah, perhaps the example about the Calgary neighborhood infoboxes wasn't the best example to illustrate my point. The trigger for me was seeing an infobox with three flags next to the birth location (country, state, city), and since we've thoroughly flogged the birth location issue to death, I wanted to focus on the use of city flags in general. Are they useful (i.e. on the airline destination list), or should we stick to countries and states/provinces/regions/etc. only? Andrwsc 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a major issue with using a city's flag on a list. However, they should be the flag of the correct city. I don't know about the others, but Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is located in SeaTac, Washington, not Seattle, so the flag for SeaTac should probably be used, not Seattle's. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The flags used in British Airways destinations make the list better, except for the "North America" section where city and state flags are overused. The list is becoming more cubersome with the use of flags in every line. I don't understand how a city flag could be useful in a list, and why only US cities flags are found and not for other countries? Could this imply a US bias in Wikipedia? CG 19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Could also mean that you didn't notice that the city flags for the Canadian cities are displayed as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Flags used like this add no value and should be removed on sight. Those of us who find flags interesting can always look up the relevant article to see what Tampa's flag looks like. (Goodness, I just looked, and it's... rather unusual. My point stands though.) --John 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I would rather see the removal of the US and Canadian city flags instead of the inclusion of hundreds of other city flags to correct any bias problem! Andrwsc 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a point Andrwsc, don't worry, I'm sure someone will go in and delete them. Sue Wallace 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why this proposal needs some tightening and officialization soon. State and now city flag icons have been popping up everywhere, and whether one believes country flag icons are useful or not, it is clear that local flags, mostly unknown to the rest of the world (especially elaborate ones reduced to icon size) really do not add anything of value. It is simpler to click the city/state/province name and see the larger 'picture' of the flag in the infobox there.--Boffob 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a consistent proliferation of city flags being used for birth and death locations in biographical articles for Americans (often in combination with the US flag). I think the recommendation to not use flagicons for birth and death locations should help limit this (if we can ever actually make it an official guideline). Kaldari 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that use of National flags in British Airways destinations make the list better. How does it? These flags dont add anything but a pretty little picture.Gnevin 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This all sounds like a call for two things:
  1. Don't use flags that are any more local than the national level (with England, etc. exceptions for the UK, as already pretty well established as "okay" by general consensus) to indicate nationality (we already say don't use them for birth/death at all)
  2. Don't use these more-local-than-national flags at all except where very relevant; we'll need to give examples (the Canadian sports page mentioned above might be a good one)
I don't have it in me right now (uncommonly!) to go spit out good policyverbiage on this, but might take a stab at it later if no one else beats me to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft language

Okay, I would really like to see this proposal moving on and out into the wide world of wiki-implementation. This looked like a standing issue, so I drafted some language for the proposal and put it in there. These are my drafts:

  • Summary section:
Non-national flags should be used only when directly relevant (e.g., articles on a city may include the city flag).
  • "Avoiding flag problems" section:
====Direct relevance of non-national flags====
Non-national flags should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Flags may be developed for any purpose: organizations, non-national governments such as cities and states, social or ethnic identities, and so on. Such flags are directly relevant to articles about those subjects. For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag would rarely should not generally be used on articles of residents of Tampa: it would be not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting.
-- Laura, lquilter 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense to me; the only thing I'd add is a reason for this guideline. I think the reason is that non-national flags are rarely recognisable to the average user, unlike national flags. Cop 663 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it's more than just the recognition thing. What about this insertion (and fix of my own typo):
Non-national flags should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Non-national flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article. Flags may be developed for any purpose: organizations, non-national governments such as cities and states, social or ethnic identities, and so on. Such flags are directly relevant to articles about those subjects. For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag would rarely should not generally be used on articles of residents of Tampa: it would be not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting.
--lquilter 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSS to hide flag icons (as individual editor preference)

I have just updated the core flag templates to allow user control on icon display. You can disable all flag icons that are rendered via the standard templates by putting the following code in your monobook.css page (or whatever skin you use): 

.flagicon { display: none; }

Note that there are still thousands of instances where the flag templates are not used (i.e. the MediaWiki image syntax is used directly), so they will still be visible.

Also note that I actually like flag icons — if they are used in a good context! — so please don't think I'm trying to wipe them out. I've spent hundreds of hours and thousands of edits on the flag template system. I'm just trying to find a solution that will work for everybody. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If only they were all used in "good context" :) Thanks for the tip! Kaldari 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is a flag "hater". They are useful in Wiki. But many of us have just seen too much abuse of flags in so many forms, which is why we've come to this page.--Boffob 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 Not done I've had to revert this new feature. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interaction between CSS class over a span and template calls for the gory details. Basically, it worked for simple template transclusions of the flag templates, but not if they were used as positional parameters to other templates. I will continue to work on this. Andrwsc 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed The MediaWiki problems have been fixed with the new preprocessor, installed yesterday. (See meta:Migration to the new preprocessor for technical details.) Therefore, I have updated the flag formatting templates so that the CSS class "wraps" the image rendering code as described above. I have done some testing myself to verify that it works, and so far so good. Please report any issues to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template if you see something goofy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Highway signs

Stuck
 – Discussion of such WikiProject-created alleged guidelines as a class is being discussed at WT:COUNCIL.

See WP:ELG for usage that will rankle most of us here. WP:ELG claims a designation of guideline, and is recommending the use of highway sign icons that are entirely redundant with the text they are associated with since both give the highyway number. An example copied from the alleged guideline verbatim: I-490/ NY 590

If these sign icons are to be used, they should be used without this redundancy, probably via alt text (which is also popup note text when hovering the cursor over the image): Interstate 490 (New York) / New York State Route 590

I've added two words to the proposal to begin addressing this unusual use of flag-like icons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have to sharply increase the gravity of the concerns I'm raising here: The proponents of WP:ELG appear to be opposed to the notion that such icons should not be used in the middle of sentences in main article prose! That is probably the very first thing that WP:FLAG achieved unanimous consensus on. Yeesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Road signs are not flags or icons. O2 (息 • 吹) 23:55, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
I think you may want to restate that; it doesn't make any sense as written. We are not talking about road signs, we are talking about icons of road signs, so saying that they are not icons is not parseable. As for flags vs. road signs, that's covered below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, if exit lists were just to be images and destinations, it would require imagemap, which add lots of kilobytes to an article. Furthermore, imagemap has not been tested to work in regular text (i.e. the next shield would go down a line). O2 (息 • 吹) 23:59, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
Actually read WP:FLAG's intro; it is not solely about flags, but iconic use in articles of flags or anything like flags, such as official seals, coats of arms, etc., and this certainly includes road signs. Road signs have been added recently, because the principal editors of WP:FLAG were unaware at earlier drafting stages that there was any idea floating around that roadsign icons ought to be popping up all over the place. Many of the problems associated with flagicons (political ones aside) are also presented by signicons, and this guideline was never intended to address only flags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:ELG has been an established guideline for nearly a year. There is no reason to change it. This is not a valid reason. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest: Wikipedia:Manual of style (icons) should be written to cover both flags and road signs and any other icons that are used on Wikipedia (eg. the Nobel Prize one). Carcharoth 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
ELG has been an established guideline for over a year, I repeat. There is no reason to write a totally different guideline to conflict with that. You go and change the guideline. And efforts to do such have failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
ELG is not an established guideline at all; it was written in a vacuum by one person, slapped with {{Guideline}} after 3 weeks, was never proposed, and has virtually never been noticed or edited by anyone but highway WikiProjects members. The nature and designation and location of all such project-created, narrowly micro-topical purported guidelines is under broad discussion at WT:COUNCIL, so this topic should simply be considered moribund here. We're certainly not going to settle the matter on this talk page. That said, I find it unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that ELG trumps FLAG (which has had broad community discussion and consensus building, and did go through the guideline proposal process) simply because it has been lurking around quietly for a few months longer. That's absurd. Consensus and guidelines simply don't work that way. There is no "seniority" or "tenure" system here for guidelines; sorry. Anyway, sorry if I'm belaboring the point; as I said, I don't think anything will be resolved about this here while a much more comprehensive discussion is ongoing at WT:COUNCIL that isn't mired in this-guideline-versus-that-one specifics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"ELG is not an established guideline at all; it was written in a vacuum by one person, slapped with {{Guideline}} after 3 weeks, was never proposed, and has virtually never been noticed or edited by anyone but highway WikiProjects members." You're 0 for 5 right now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship / nation and state

Hello everyone. I would like to direct your attention to an ongoing discussion on the distinction between nationality and citizenship that I think is relevant to this proposal. In addition to what I have said there, I will point out that the ' Use of flags for non-sovereign nations' guideline in this proposal confuses nations with states. Since the guideline is intended to give preference to the latter, I suggest that flags should only be used in the 'Citizenship' field that I have proposed in the 'Infobox Person' discussion. – SJL 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is premature then. If the {{Infobox person}} discussion reaches consensus on that, and further consensus is reached (I think it is very close) that {{Infobox person}}, whatever its particulars, should subsume all of the inconsistent topical bio infoboxes floating around, then propose a change here. It would be wrong to change this guideline to reflect one half of a debate, and thereby probably unduly influence the course of that debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: WP:FLAG does not "confuse" nations and states, it intentionally does not attempt to resolve or even explain the sometimes subtle differences (which often effectively do not exist, while in other cases are marked), because this is WP:FLAG not WP:NATION. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
PPS: I don't mean to be flippant here; the language is adequately guiding in most cases, and as with everything it or any other guideline says, there will always be some complicated exceptions that need to be handled manually with editorial consensus at the articles in question. Nothing new here. If/when the {{Infobox person}} plan is settled and implemented, I doubt anyone will have an objection to having WP:FLAG mesh with it; indeed, we've been saying all along in here that it is not the purpose of WP:FLAG to sort out the "nationality question" nor dictate what fields infoboxes should have, and that these questions would have to be settled elsewhere; that means by implication that when they are settled WP:FLAG needs to go along with it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These discussions and the decisions that will come out of them are closely related, and any influence that one might have on the other would not be 'undue' in any reasonable sense. I think that taking them as a whole is the right course. If your concern is just that that discussion shouldn't be conducted here, consider this an invitation to interested parties to join the discussion on the Infobox Person talk page.
Regarding nations and states, your position is unfounded. Very few states can accurately be described as nation-states, a term which itself emphasises the distinction between these two concepts, or it would otherwise be redundant. My proposal isn't about 'sorting out the nationality question', as you say, because there is no scholarly debate on whether there is a difference between nations and states. It is simply a fact that they are distinct concepts, which are often conflated for political purposes. I can provide references to support this position, but I know that you don't like it when I do that. – SJL 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it when you use <ref> and <references /> formatting to provide a pile of references that act as a handwave, using argument to authority to make it look like your point is super-strong when it is actually pretty impenetrable. No one in this debate, on any of these pages, has questioned that the concepts of nation and state have differences. It's simply not relevant, so citing references for it is a waste of everone's time. I don't know what you mean by "my position is unfounded", followed by your lecture about the nation/state distinction; I offered no "position" on that issue at all. What isn't happening in this debate is you clearly outlining an actual Wikipedia problem, your proposed solution to it, why that solution is better than others, and why the problem is severe enough that it can't simply be ignored. It's clear that you are very up in arms about whatever it is that is bothering you, but it clearly isn't bothering the community at large, so the "burden of proof" is on you to make your case (more clearly). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First, you need to learn how to respond to someone that you disagree with without belittling them. It's a recurring problem, and I'm not the only one who has recognised it. I understand that you are strongly committed to your opinions, and I admire your dedication to Wikipedia but, if only because you aspire to become an administrator, please stop dismissing arguments that you disagree with as foolish.
Second, I don't understand your reasoning here. You claim that you are not taking a position on the issue, but continue to defend the status quo, which is to treat nations and states as though they are the same thing. Your implicit position, then, is that there is no difference between the two, or at least that whatever differences there may be are not important enough for Wikipedia to recognise. My contrary position, stated as clearly as possible, is as follows:
  1. Wikipedia currently uses the terms 'nation' and 'nationality' as synonyms for 'state' and 'citizenship', respectively;
  2. This practice is demonstrably inaccurate and, accordingly, should stop;
  3. In most instances where editors use 'nation' and 'nationality' in contexts relevant to this discussion, they mean 'state' and 'citizenship';
  4. On a general level, this means that 'Citizenship' should be added as a field to the Infobox Person template, with clear instructions that explain the differences between nationality and citizenship, why they are sometimes mistakenly used as synonyms, and how to decide whether either is appropriate for use in a given circumstance;
  5. In this specific context, it means that the guideline recommending that flags be restricted to 'sovereign nations' should instead restrict them to 'sovereign states', which by extension entails that flags should only be used in the proposed 'Citizenship' field in the Infobox Person template.
I look forward to your considered and civil response. – SJL 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, you should perhaps consider following your own advice more. But I acknowledge the point, and will make an effort to be more collegial; I'm not here to pick fights with people. :-) (PS: I've pretty much forgotten about adminship; just keeping up with my own watchlist soaks up all my WP time, so I'm not sure I'd be useful with an admin bit.)
Second point: I think I follow you, but disagree with your interpretation and will try to 'splain: I do not believe that the difference between nation and state, nor nationality and citizenship, needs to be explored in this document in any depth at all; it's simply off-topic here. I do not have a position on whether the concepts "should be" separate (they clearly are), on which is more important in some subjective way, on which WP should prefer to address in infoboxes (again, off-topic here). I disagree that your position is stated clearly:
  1. Not WP:MOSFLAG's problem. It's good that you are attempting to resolve this through a venue ({{Infobox person}}) that is more likely to be able to resolve this problem, to the extent that it is recognized as one. I actually tend to side with you on this. As already noted, if that discussion produces a consensus, MOSFLAG would surely go along with it, but shouldn't be radically changed right now when that discussion is still ongoing.
  2. Same as above, basically. I have made some edits that I think will help resolve the tension you have about MOSFLAG during the interim (e.g. changing "nationality" to "citizenship or nationality", etc.)
  3. I don't see the difference between point #1 and #3, unless the former is a complaint about WP guideline and infobox wording, and the latter is a complaint about editor ignorance. Either way, same answer as for #1 and #2.
  4. Same answer again; that simply isn't a discussion that takes place here, and happily is already taking place at the template's talk page.
  5. First part: Thank you for (finally) getting the point across about what to change in this document. I don't see why you didn't just go change the word yourself. I guess I will. Second point: Same answer as all of the above ones - not a matter for this talk page or its document (yet).
Is this better? I would really love to mark this thread {{Stuck|Discussion relocated to Template talk:Infobox person}} and stop arguing with you here. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
PS: I have added "citizenship" where appropriate, and distinguished it from "nationality" where needed, and changed the name of the section you mentioned to "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations" (the section does in fact talk about both kinds of entities, so both words need to be there). Hope that resolves this for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I agree that the main discussion should be continued on the Infobox Person talk page. I raised the issue here because that discussion is relevant to this guideline, and I want people who are involved in developing and implementing this guideline to be aware of and hopefully participate in it. The first four points listed above were intended to clarify my reasons for proposing the fifth.
Thank you for changing some of the wording. I will propose a general guideline on the use of citizenship and nationality on the Infobox Person talk page soon, and follow up here after the resolution of that discussion. – SJL 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a Good Plan. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I have written a guideline for this issue, which I am proposing here. I look forward to your comments! – SJL 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Guideline time

Quite a bit of time has passed since this was proposed; the language has solidified and remained stable other than additions to cover a few cases; the controversial provisions have been adjusted into a consensus that has remained stable since removal of the pro and con "partisan" wording; strife on the talk page has stopped completely (other than inasmuch as WP:ELG conflicts with WP:FLAG, a matter for resolution between these two documents, as it doesn't have anything to do with whether WP:FLAG has consensus); the response has been almost entirely, though in some cases reservedly, positive; out-standing issues can be resolved later, as none of them are "fatal" to guideline's general usefulness; the guideline is sorely needed; some parties (I won't name names here) believe that without it being designated a guideline it should simply be ignored; there does not appear to be anything left to do at this stage - we're unlikely to know in what further ways the guideline can be improved until it has been used as a designated guideline for a time; the last known remaining problem expressed by people at WP:WPFT, the non-national flags issue, has been uncontroversially addressed; and, finally, this is now the third time that actually going to guideline designation has been proposed, with myself (if I recall correctly) being the opponent of the move last time (my objections have now been resolved by the work over the last month-plus).

So, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just do it. If a strong and substantive objection is raised, please simply change {{Guideline}} back to {{Proposal}} and raise your concerns clearly here.

PS: I'm moving it to an MOS name, per older and uncontroverial discussions that this logically has to be part of the MOS when it is designated a guideline, since it is a style guideline, and is a general one, not limited to some specific topic or project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

PPS: I've actually been half-bold and made the rename but not changed the tag yet; another day to listen for last-minute issue won't kill anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool! But we need a link to it from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page, with a summary. Not sure where to put it - under 'Images' or in its own section? Cop 663 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Already covered at {{Style}}; I don't have any huge objection to adding a very short summary of it to MOS itself, but I don't see that it's essential; much of what is listed in {{Style}} is not summarized in MOS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
NB: I have proposed (neutrally) at WT:MOS that such a summary might be appropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully support the upgrading of this proposal. It has been a long time in the making and I think it has been well hashed-out. Kaldari 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I too support the upgrading to guideline. Congratulations. Carcharoth 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has changed it to {{guideline}}, after I "advertised" it yesterday for last-hour comments/concerns at WT:MOS and no one complained, so here we are! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, SMcCandlish, and thank you for all your painstaking work. Cop 663 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed. It's certainly not a trivial task to shepherd a guideline to approval. For the sake of nostalgia, here is the original version of this page preserved for posterity. It's certainly come a long way since then :) Kaldari 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Well done everybody for all the work that has gone into this. --John 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; lots of others have done great stuff here, especially sanity checks in the "don't rewrite history" and other factuality/abuse veins. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of having this guideline survive, I would suggest that we let it marinate for a while before anyone goes on any flag deleting "sprees". Let's try to keep the use of this guideline as non-confrontational and non-controversial as possible, at least until it's had a good while to be seen and reviewed by the better part of the editing community. Kaldari 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw! (Puts flag-removing knife away sadly). --John 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Except the guideline will not get much notice by the general population until someone applies it against articles. I'd avoid the mass killing sprees, but a small number of surgical strikes here and there that reference the guideline would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I just know that people often have extreme reactions (rightfully so) to style "correcting" sprees. We should apply this guideline judiciously (at least until it's survived more than a few days). Kaldari 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Concur. I think the first targets should be use of flags for birth/death lines. The most cautious approach would be to move them to nationality/citizenship lines, and then perhaps later challenge whether they are appropriate at all in the article in question. Second target I'd nuke would be overuse in infoboxes (e.g. 5 flag icons for various things in one infobox.) Third, removal of the Ulster Banner from where it doesn't belong (despite some paranoia about this, there is no "campaign to remove the flag of Northern Ireland[sic] from Wikipedia") and replace it with a HTML comment that says that no flag should appear there and to see WP:MOSFLAG for why. Just my pet peeves, but I imagine others here share them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that anything should be done about the Ulster Banner just yet. There is a mediation currently in progress about this specific issue (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage), and I think it would be highly inappropriate to "torpedo" that mediation by making UB-related edits before that mediation concludes. I am also very concerned that this freshly-minted guideline is perceived by some as a green light to remove pretty much any flag usage, with the blessing of an "official guideline" to back up those edits. Andrwsc 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>I'm not sure how applying this guideline against the Ulster banner would impact the mediation in progress as the focus of the mediation seems to be in regards to the flag's use on templates and in relation to sporting. The use of flags in templates isn't explicitly covered in the guideline and the use of flags when used in connection with a national team is allowed. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even so, Andrwsc has a reasonable point; regardless of the nitty-gritty details, it would probably be best to not do anything relating to Ulster Banner issues until the mediation (or more, if it goes there) is resolved, just to not muddy the waters. It's not like there is some kind of deadline or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
However, continued fighting in Irish topics should not indefinitely postpone application of this or any other guidline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner section

Resolved
 – On-topic questions answered; no consensus to change section; off-topic questions referred elsewhere.

This section is wrong and should be removed. There are plenty of sources showing this to be the unofficial flag of Nrothern Ireland, and this guidline should not be hijacked by Irish republican editors who wish to censor wikipedia from images they find offensive. Astrotrain 11:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The section already says the flag is unofficial. That is the whole point. And the very fact that this flag causes edit wars and endless debates is a very good reason not to use an unofficial flag to represent a place in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. Cop 663 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So what about the other three unofficial 'subnational' flags of the United Kingdom? How can they be acceptable? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The British Government recognises the flags of England, Scotland and Wales as representative of those nations, in the case of Northern Ireland it don't, and only the Union Flag is recognised.--Padraig 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The guideline is fairly clear in that in the rare cases that a flag is used that it should be the flag of the sovereign state and not that of the subnation.[11] If a flag is to be used, the guideline discourages the use of the English, Scottish, and Welsh flags (excluding when used in conjunction with their national sports teams, of course) and encourage the use of the British flag.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that some editors are removing subnational flags from List of British flags. Clearly the guideline cannot be used to remove flags from an article which is supposed to show and describe all the flags used in that country? Astrotrain 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea if that flag belongs in that article or not, but citing this guideline as an argument that the flag should be removed from an article about flags is ridiculous. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is ridiculous! And yet we have this edit citing this guideline. Andrwsc 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, I saw that edit before. How do we stop morons editors from abusing this guideline. Garion96 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The same way that we stop editors that misinterpret any other guideline. Tell them they are misapplying it and if that doesn't work, float it further up the dispute resolution process. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment The flag Wasn't removed it is in the Historical Flags section, Astrotrain edited the page and put it into the current National flags section, that is what I reverted, it is not a National flag.--Padraig 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

List of British flags

The List of British flags currently states for Northern Ireland:

Flag Date Use Description Status


Northern Ireland does not currently have a de jure National flag[1] other than the Union Flag - the former Government of Northern Ireland banner, the Ulster Banner, is still in use by international sporting organisations, (eg FIFA [2], UEFA [3], and the Commonwealth Games [4]) and can be seen in the Historical flags section. A red cross on a white field with a red hand, on a six pointed white star, crowned (representing the six counties in Northern Ireland). The Ulster Banner ceased to officially exist with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which dissolved the Parliament of Northern Ireland, Not recognised by the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly

Now to me, this is wrong:

  • It shows the UK Flag image only, but discusses both the UB and Union Flag in the context of Northern Ireland
  • It gives a description of the UB but does not show the corresponding image (and contradicts the image shown)
  • The final column also discusses the image but again it is not shown

Is there anywhere on this guideline that states a flag cannot be used in an article about flags? Astrotrain 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have a mediation talk page to discuss the proper use of the Ulster banner? This guideline does not define what the appropriate use of controversial flags are, just that they should not be used when it is inappropriate. It is up to the editors of the page to determine the appropriate use of the flag in an article about the flags of the UK. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking on the talk page on this guideline whether this guideline can be used to remove flags from a flag article? Astrotrain 09:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain nobody is or has removed any flags from this article the Ulster Banner is shown in the Historical flag section which is linked in the text Historical flags, which is correct as the UB is not a current national flag and is historical since 1972.--Padraig 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer that narrow question, the answer is "yes" and "no". If I go and add the flag of Botswana to the article in question, then of course MOSFLAG's recommendation that flags not be used where they do not apply would be useful (not that anyone would bother citing MOSFLAG in removing something that out of place). But just read the document. There isn't anything in it that says anything about removing flag images from articles about the flags themselves. Whether a particular flag belongs in that article is a matter of editorial consensus building at that article. Concur with above comments that if someone is misusing this guideline, they should be handled like any other problem edits. And as noted in this case, it's not even a deletion but a move from one section to another. Just not a Manual of Style issue, but an editorial consensus one over there. I'm marking this entire thread "Resolved" because everything in it that can legitimately be addressed here has been, and the rest is off-topic. I'd suggest that any further issues that are relevant here (e.g. the wording of the guideline or its applicability) be raised in separate and more narrowly constructed topics so it doesn't just turn into another "let's argue about Northern Ireland here too" thread. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

===Interesting side issue=== Ok this may not be covered by the scope of this guideline but since image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is infact not the flag of NI should it be moved to say as File:Fomer flag of Northern Ireland.svg or something similar , the name as is carries a certain amount of POV? Gnevin 00:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but this is not the place for that discussion.--Padraig 00:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree striked out Gnevin 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

flagicon|UK or flagicon|GBR

Yes I know this is a minor thing & both links show the Union Jack. However, at List of current boxing world champions when I made these changes, I never expected to be reverted or disputed (but that's the case). I feel the UK link should be used, as the GBR link suggests exclusion of Northern Ireland. I admit this is being overly picky, but I'm a little concerned with the objections to UK. GoodDay 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to raise this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, not here; they are responsible for creating the icons and links. Cop 663 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you use {{flagicon}}, it makes absolutely no difference. Any revert on that is utterly pointless — only the wikicode is different. The rendered page is identical. I also note that the ISO country code for the UK is "GBR", so there is sufficient justification for using that three letter code in any context for flagicon.
A difference does show up if you use {{flag}}. Specifically, {{flag|Great Britain}} renders  Great Britain and {{flag|United Kingdom}} renders  United Kingdom. Note that in both cases the wikilink points to United Kingdom, and the alt attribute for the image is the same ("Flag of the United Kingdom"). The difference in display text is intended for situations where the UK competes in sporting events as "Great Britain".
Hope this helps, Andrwsc 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So, one should use the UK/United Kingdom ones unless having a specific reason to use the GBR/Great Britain ones, yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I would answer "yes". For {{flagicon}} it is somewhat irrelevant, as the result is identical. The only issue I could see is with respect to the wiki source. Many sport-related articles tend to use the corresponding country codes, and that's what the edit war on the boxing article was about. The "GBR" proponents in that situation wanted to consistently use the common sporting three letter code for all templates in the wiki source, and that is reasonable. In a different context (military, perhaps), I think it is probably better to use "UK" in the wiki source.
As for {{flag}}, the result is quite different. I would say that using "Great Britain" as the wikilink display name can only be used in sport-related contexts, such as in 2003 World Championships in Athletics. You could use either {{flagcountry|GBR}} or {{flag|Great Britain}} for the same result. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to me, modulo some situations in which GBR/Great Britain make sense historically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
When I changed those to UK (from GBR), I didn't know I was going to cause an uproar there (since the result was still Union Jack). However, politics and sports apparently don't mix. Therefore, I've accepted GBR (begrudgingly). GoodDay 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it has anything to do with politics. Sports articles frequently use country codes with the flag templates, and like it or not, GBR is the country code for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — at least for sports where the UK has a combined team, unlike football, rugby, etc. where ENG, SCO, WAL and NIR have their own teams. I think it's a petty edit war, especially since the rendered result is the same, but if I had an article that used all the correct three letter country codes and one was changed to a two letter code from some other standard set of codes, I'd be a bit annoyed too. Andrwsc 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, do as you wish. I'm no longer disputing this MoS page's guidelines. I'm no longer causing a stink, which I naively caused. GoodDay 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You sound like you think you've caused a problem, but I don't think that is the case. Seems like a perfectly valid distinction to draw and to discuss. Just my two cents. (Do the British say "my two pence" or does the idiom simply not translate? Just curious.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

we should always use UK because the official name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Skitzo (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Section: Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations

I am removing the majority of this section as it basically sounds off about the flag of Northern Ireland, again, and takes a particular POV which would tend to suggest that Wikipedia has taken a stand against the usage of this particular flag. It hasn't. Very few flags, if any, are without "politicised connotations". The section will need expanding and terms such as "overbroad use" and "with politicised connotations" will either have to be explained and defined accurately, or removed or modified. --Mal 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't just cut out a entire section because you don't like the content, discuss major changes here first.--Padraig 09:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather be WP:BOLD, thanks. After all, somebody added the biased section without any major discussion that I noticed to begin with, didn't they? --Mal 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That section has used the Ulster Banner as an example for a long time now as was only recently shortened to point to the Northern Ireland flag issue, so don't delete sections just because they don't suit your POV.--Padraig 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that I removed POV from the proposed guideline. I certainly didn't add any POV to it. Please get your perspective right. --Mal 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is one thing, but wholesale deletion is another. Cf. WP:BRD; you must expect to be reverted on this and to have to discuss the matter and come to consensus on a version we can all live with. The language you lopped out has been well-accepted and stable since something like April 2007. I recognize the concerns you are raising, but outright nuking it en masse is not the solution. The point of the passage is clear and important; if it needs twiddling and massaging, then let's do that. You and I have tangled before over this particular flag, so I don't want this to devolve into any kind of flamewar, but really let's be clear: A substantial portion of the background of this guideline's very genesis is abuse of the Ulster Banner (and to be fair, abusive antagonism towards it). The very fact that the politics of Northern Ireland are being waged in wikiwars here at WP is very, very much an integral part of the rationale of the guideline. N.I. and the U.B. are a case study in why this guideline is needed. The Nazi flag (for very different reasons, I hasten to add) is also such a case in point and is underrepresented in the text as an example. Anyway, the point is that we need to come to a compromise, in which the politicization of WP article editing and the problems that causes, often beginning over nothing but a darned flagicon, can be addressed here – and the U.B. is, for better or worse, the cannonical example – while the U.B. itself shouldn't be dragged through the mud, nor any kind of Unionist vs. Republican politics be allowed to sneak into the guideline prose under the radar. I would strongly suggest that we begin with restoration of the language you rather suddenly and WP:BOLDly objected to and deleted, so that we have something to work with (and on the general principle that consensus does not change just because a single editor raises an objection). I call for a "reboot", if you will. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a different example than the NI flag?

The whole Northern Ireland flag issue is causing massive controversy that is a distraction from improving this guideline. Since the issue is still being debated elsewhere, this is the wrong example for a page that is trying to give straightforward guidelines. Flag experts: are there any examples of politicized flags that have been used overbroadly, but which there is now a Wikipedia consensus on, and are hence less likely to bring squadrons of furious editors to this talk page? Cop 663 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is a good example for this I don't see why it should be not used as an example just because a small number of editors refuse to accept that the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland today.--Padraig 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's a good example, I agree, but can we find another equally good example, so that the endless debates can be siphoned off to somewhere more appropriate? How about this: "For example, the Confederate Flag should not be used to represent the Southern United States, even though some Americans use it for that purpose, as it has no official status and is politically contentious (see Flags of the Confederate States of America)." Perhaps this would cause less debates on this talk page, and it would then be up to the NI editors to find a consensus about the Ulster Banner's relationship to this guideline.Cop 663 14:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's the same old story guys, the 'Ulster Banner' issue is just the latest example of the ongoing British VS Irish dispute across all related articles (British and Irish related articles). GoodDay 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The 'flag' of England stopped being official with the Act of Union 300 years ago. The Flag of Northern Ireland stopped being official in 1972. Why is one acceptable and the other one not? Or why do we even need any of them at all? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Did it, funny that the British government still recognise the English, Scotland and Welsh flags then.--Padraig 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the Confederate Flag instead sounds good to me as well. As long as it doesn't bring the Ku Klux Klan down on us. --John 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason why both examples can't be used, after all Wikipedia isn't censored.--Padraig 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never liked the NI example on this guideline - it is far too detailed and "preachy", which is more than the guideline ought to say. It's not a matter of censorship; it's a matter of writing a crisp guideline that doesn't stray off course. The same point applies to the subsequent section on Taiwan and Chinese Taipei — it is also far more verbose than it needs to be, and even repeats some of the content in the article on Chinese Taipei. I would prefer to see both of these sections combined into something simpler, with wikilinks to direct the reader to additional information. Perhaps something like this:
Some flags are politically contentious – take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are:
  1. use of the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland. See Northern Ireland flags issue for details.
  2. use of the Flag of the Republic of China in contexts where the flag of Chinese Taipei is preferable.
  3. use of the Flags of the Confederate States of America to represent all or part of the Southern United States.
I believe this guideline should stick to the salient points about flag icon usage and not repeat or rewrite any other political statements. Directing the reader to detailed articles about each of those issues is the right approach. Andrwsc 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That is so much better. There's no reason why this guideline should go into such detailed prescriptions about one issue (regardless of whether it's right or not). However, I'd suggest something looser on the NI flag since it is arguably OK in sports articles, something like "use of the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland in inappropriate contexts; see Northern Ireland flags issue for details". Also reorder the list according to importance - USA (population 250 million) Taiwan (population 22 million), NI (population 2 million). Cop 663 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that population determines "importance" here. The NI flag is the subject of constant edit warring and a current mediation process, with many blocked editors along the way. The ROC/TPE flags are much less frequently warred over, most recently around the 2006 World Baseball Classic, but not really since then (from what I've seen). And the Confederate Navy Jack is only used on 56 other pages, and 53 of those are on confederate navy ship articles, so I think the example is more of a theoretical problem than a real one. (Hopefully not a WP:BEANS problem we're creating!). Andrwsc 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not sure population is an accurate measure of importance or that we should be making that determination, if a non-arbitrary sort is needed, then alpha sort is probably best. So, Confederate flag, Republic of China flag, then Ulster Banner. Same order, but without the POV.; ) --Bobblehead (rants) 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Cunning, Bobblehead, cunning! About the constant edit warring, possibly the Confederate flag is rarely used because some consensus emerged against its usein the past. And presumably that is the case with ROC/TP now? So these are the kinds of examples we should use here, rather than wave red flags at bulls (hmm... bad choice of phrase there, but you know what I mean) Cop 663 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I took the plunge and replaced the detailed verbiage with Andrewsc's condensed version. Hopefully this will be OK. Cop 663 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the condensed version, FWIW. Kaldari 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm also pretty much on-board with the 1-2-3 version, as far as it goes, but I believe that too many important nuances are lost. I would like to see a solid paragraph there giving reasons why these flags (and the Nazi flag, and one could maybe also use the Burma vs. Mynamar issue as well) are contentious. Otherwise we are just begging the question. As I suggested above, I think we should start with the text that was WP:BOLDly excised and see what we can come up with using the 1-2-3 format suggested as the main material – what points from the original version can be presevered, more concisely and without being "preachy" as someone put it, and perhaps some other ones added, but the verbiage condensed to get the point across tersely and without emotion? (NB: I'm aware of the possibility that because I wrote most of this, I may be hypersensitive to its deletion, but I'm consciously examining that possibility and do not feel that this motivation is at work in me here.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Rescinded in part. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been a lot of bold claims about a consensus that I for one have never seen. Fair enough consensus doesn't change because of one editor's objections, but there have been umpteen objections on the general principle under discussion but somehow the discussion keeps getting moved to more and more different locations. In this instance it has been inserted in this guideline by someone who is already party to the dispute and now their colleagues try and use this guideline as some kind of authority, a ridiculous catch 22 scenario. The simple fact is that while many editors object to the "policy" of some other editors, we have not the time to spend 24 hours a day monitoring every page on Wikipedia to work out where the argument is going to be moved to next. beano (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be too concerned about this section. The purpose of that single bullet point is simply to say "be extra mindful of this flag". Any editor who is using it as a full justification for broad removal of the Ulster Banner from many articles is either naive or disingenuous. This general guideline cannot possibly adequately address the scope of the Northern Ireland flag issue—nor should it. If you've been following Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage, I've proposed that a complete guideline page be developed precisely to address this issue, and if that happens, this guideline page can point to that. Andrwsc (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be changed to a link to your guidelines then? At the moment it used by some to justify removal (I remember one user removing the image from a flag article citing flagcruft!) Astrotrain (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The only time the Ulster Banner should be used is when refering to "Ulster loyalism", "Ulster unionism" or in relation to certain sporting context such as football and the commonwealth games.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It could also be legitimately used in historical articles about NI if they are limited to a period in which the flag was official. And otherwise what you said applies to flag icons; it would be prefectly fine to use the UB as a regular image, with an appropriate caption, in various places, e.g. at Flag of Northern Ireland. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right that would also be a legitimate and correct usage of the banner as well.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place for detailed explanations of the individual problems. These issues are highly contentious and will result in endless edit wars deflecting attention and editorial energy from the rest of the guideline. In the case of NI, the issues are unresolved anyway, so we can't set out strict guidelines here. Simply saying "do not use the Ulster Banner inappropriately" is a good compromise, because we can use it as an example, while still referring the reader elsewhere for more detailed ideas about what is and isn't 'appropriate'. However we could use a slightly better explanation of what 'overbroad' means, since that is a bit vague at the moment.Cop 663 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all points (Cop 663's immediately above mine I mean, just to be clear). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable use?

Look at Wolf Prize in Chemistry. Is this an acceptable use under WP:FLAG? I'm not sure if a list is considered inline text or more akin to the recommended tabular usage, but either way, it makes my eyes hurt. Thoughts? --lquilter 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuk! The problem is that having two flags on one line looks like inline text even if technically it isn't. It looks messy and cluttered. It would look better with a separate 'nationality' column. See Jury Prize (Cannes Film Festival) for an example; see the 2007 films on that list for a tidier rendering of multiple flags. Cop 663 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the ugliness factor, the use of flags in conjunction with those that have been awarded the prize seems at odds with the Wolf Prize's precept of awarding the prize without regard to the recipient's nationality.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and agreed (i.e., use table, not list, and Wolf Prize a bad bet for flagicons). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Highway signs in the middle of text

On Talk:Interstate 196 there is a dispute over whether [12] or [13] is preferable. Please contribute. --NE2 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Highways are not flags. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:FLAG is not only about flags. --NE2 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be. In either case, I don't see what the big deal is between those two versions. The table sub-heading is hardly "in the middle of text" (at least, no more so than the icons appearing on the table rows), so I don't think that the "Not for use in general article prose" guideline is truly applicable. My €0.02 anyway. Andrwsc 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be, and since day one it was never intended to be. I am pretty sure that language to the effect of "flags and similar images" was added in my first or second draft, on the premise that similar issues would arise with coats of arms (on which highway "shields" are based), logos, official seals, and the like, and language of one sort or another about this has been in there since April or May. We all know that Rschen7754 is dead set against anything outside of the road WikiProjects having any effect at all on what those projects choose to do with regard to highway signage in WP articles, but this is not a realistic position, and is not even one maintained by other major contributors to the topical guideline being created by that cadre of editors. That said, I otherwise concur with Andrwsc; table headings are not general article prose. I don't like the look of it all that much, but WP:MOSFLAG really doesn't have other than general applicability with regard to it - are the icons adding something useful for the reader, or simply decorative? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Never use a flag for birth or death place...

I don't get this. Why does the flag "imply" "citizenship or nationality"? How does it do this any more than the text does? Its the same information in a graphic. Does using the text that someone was born in Beirut imply "citizenship or nationality" also? Its a double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags are symbols of nationality, i.e. they indicate that something belongs to a nation. That is their primary purpose (or at least it used to be before they became mere decorations). Writing the name of a country is very different than using it's flag. Kaldari 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that flags leap out of the page, whereas words don't. If you're skimming an article and see a brightly-coloured flag in the person's infobox, you might be misled into thinking it signifies their nationality. Cop 663 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed there are a couple of editors that keep mass removing flags from the origin parts of band article infoboxes. They use "Never use a flag for birth or death place" as a reason to justify these mass edits. I feel this is not the right thing to do as this reason is not applicable to bands. I'm I wrong? Kameejl (Talk) 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Even in origin of band part in infoboxes, flags are kind of pointless. Garion96 (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
They can be equally misleading for bands. Also, with bands, it's often the city that is more closely identified with their origins (e.g. the Beatles and Liverpool, Oasis and Manchester), than the country, so it can be wrong to make the country look like the most important thing. There's also the issue of over-emphasizing nationality above other things. Cop 663 13:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I see, most people believe it's pointless (but I wonder why so many band articles featured flags, they were added for a reason). I think their biggest advantage is visual identification. The infobox is meant to be a quick overview and flags improve this infobox quality. And how are they misleading? If a band's origin is the United States then it's the United States, nothing else. If you're British, Oasis' city might be more appealing, but I see nothing wrong with having a flag to identify their country of origin. I read over-emphasizing nationality (multiple times) and still don't see how it is applicable to bands as bands aren't people. People have a nationality, bands have a origin. Kameejl (Talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This MOS doesn't seem to prohibit country flags in band infoboxes. The only right conclusion is to allow them (for now). If it's a problem in a article (resulting in edit wars) it can be removed there but for now I see no reason to mass remove flags. The "emphasizing" argument can be used for all uses of the flag and is not applicable to bands as it is not applicable to all correct use of flags. Kameejl (Talk) 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
People have a nationality, bands have a origin. But since flags are symbols of nationality, they imply nationality not origin for bands. Moreover, the rationale is the same: they attract attention to the origin, rather than, say, the genre or the things the band is known for or other information in the infobox. Is that what is intended? To highlight the nationality fields in the infobox over any of the others? --Lquilter 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, flags are not symbols of nationality, they symbolize a country. I really don't think an additional icon is attracting attention in a negative way. You could use the same argument for band pictures: they attract attention to <what a band looks like>, rather than, say, the genre or the things the band is known for or other information in the infobox. Is that a negative thing? Not really. Pictures are used for visual identification. The infobox is meant to be a quick overview and flags improve this infobox quality. Pictures can be helpful. They certainly are less distracting and more helpful in infoboxes than they are in these flagcrufty lists used as example of appropriate flag use (example). Kameejl (Talk) 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Why is it so important to provide an attention-drawing symbol of national origin, but not other things? Why don't you want to give the 'associated artists' little symbols? Why not a symbol of their genre? Or their 22px record label? If you're not giving symbols for these things, why draw special attention to their country of origin? Cop 663 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Because these logos are not associated with genres or record labels by the majority of readers. They probably have never been used to portray genres of record labels in infoboxes, unlike origin flags. Kameejl (Talk) 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Before some people started using semi-automated tools to massively add flags to infoboxes, flags had never been used in infoboxes. Most flags are not associated with their countries by the majority of readers. As noted in the MOS here, very few flags are recognizable by readers, and even some of those that are recognizable are potentially ambiguous. Flags next to a birth or death place add no information to an article, but can be misleading and confusing. —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Bands have no nationality, no birth or death place, and so the part in this MOS is not applicable to bands. Could anyone show me an example of misleading and confusing use of a flag in a band infobox?
  • Maybe it's an European thing and less of an American thing but most flags are known by a lot of people here in Europe. If I take myself as an example: I never did my best to learn country/flag combination but I'm convinced I know 80% of the common ones (probably learned through extremely popular international events (sports etc.)).
Why are there flag icons in the first place? The only thing I notice here is that flags shouldn't be used altogether. Kameejl (Talk) 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The places where flags are useful and relevant are listed in the guidelinest. For example, articles related to sporting events and military history, where a clearcut use of flags icons (teams, athletes and armies often identify themselves with particular flags) can help save space in repeated entries and give quick visual information. With bands and such, the issue is not clearcut. Which flag would you put on the Beatles, the UK or the England flag? How many people outside Europe can identify the England flag? What info does the flag have over the name of the country that is really necessary to add to the infobox?--Boffob 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is how useful does the icon serve as a navigational aid. A singular flag icon in an infobox (such as the "Origin" field of a rock band article like The Guess Who), is purely decorative. "It looks nice" is not a good reason to keep it. But articles like 2007 Formula One season use them to good effect when looking for particular drivers, teams, races, etc. in any of the multiple tables on that page. Andrwsc 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Try the one second test on the following article section, look at it for one second and tell me how many non-Irish managers they have had Republic_of_Ireland_national_football_team#Managers. - You'd think it was two but it's not it's three, because Mick McCarthy is in fact British. The reason I raise it is to bring forward the question of consistency, what flag should be displayed next to his name? Ireland because he played football for them or UK because that is his nationality? On the Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. article I've managed to stop the flip-flop reverting of the flag next to his name by removing it from the infobox. Like Kameejl below, I would love a clear yes or no resolution to this discussion. - X201 10:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again: "The infobox is meant to be a quick overview and flags improve this infobox quality". Decoration is not a motive. Nor are flags meant to add new content (in fact, an infobox should always display redundant information). What is so bad about The Guess Who infobox? Within 1 second I saw the band is from Canada. It was not misleading nor confusing. And regarding 2007 Formula One season: Per this MOS the flags should be removed as they violate Using too many flags and Accompany flags with country names, guidelines met by infobox origin flags. The weirdest thing is that all drivers listed have a flag in their infobox f.e. David Coulthard. Is this correct? He is listed as British. It doesn't seem to be a problem for race drivers, why would it be for bands?
Many, perhaps all counter-arguments in this section are also applicable to "correct" flag use (misleading, decorative, emphasizing nationality, ambiguity, unknown to the average user, etc.). I understand the consensus is not to have flags in infoboxes (as no-one is agreeing with me on this) but I haven't read any conclusive arguments. Double standards are applied here. Please don't understand me wrong, I don't want to nag or irritate anybody here, I just want clear and objective rules. I just don't understand the criteria right now. Kameejl (Talk) 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that 2007 Formula One season is a bad example as it doesn't attach country names to the flags; it needs fixing urgently. And yes, I would remove it from David Coulthard as well as it's pointless. As people have noted above, some editors go around obsessively adding flags to anything that moves, which is why you can find them everywhere. They only belong where nationality is a very important issue to the person or thing concerned.
The basic point is WP:NPOV - avoiding nationalistic flag-waving where it's not appropriate. You say 'if I look at an infobox with a flag in it for 1 second, I know where the band is from'. Well, yes. But look at Pulp (band). Within 1 second you know they're from England ... because it says 'England' in the infobox! Words are just as identifiable as flags. The difference is that Pulp (band) isn't in-your-face about the band's origins. It's isn't saying 'ENGLISH BAND!!!, oh incidentally they're an indie band signed to Island Records' It's just saying 'they're from England and here's some other equally important stuff about them.' Cop 663 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if the 2007 Formula One season and David Coulthard articles use flags inappropriatly then I understand your opinion. But I still think this MOS is pretty vague. The MOS would be more clear if everything would be deleted and replaced by "<Flags> only belong where nationality is a very important issue to the person or thing concerned" with a few examples of correct use. Your opinion is very strict (nothing wrong with that); I'd prefer more freedom and think a band's origin is important (as countries often have specific music scenes), emphasizing the country is not wrong per se. The country is often the first thing to get a mention in the body (e.g. XYZ is a Rwandese Gregorian chant group). The consencus seems to go towards your opinion, that's OK, but it means this MOS needs some work to reflect that. Wouldn't it be better to have a MOS that only states when flags should be used? Not how flags shouldn't be used? Kameejl (Talk) 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey listen, thanks for making these points (I meant to say that at the end of my last point actually!) I think the MOS does say all this, but you're right that it's expressed through negatives rather than positives, which may cause lack of clarity. Regarding the importance of country, I agree that it's sometimes important, but not necessarily important enough to deserve special treatment (if 'Rwandan' is being highlighted more than 'Gregorian chant', that's a problem IMO). And as I said above, a lot of bands have a much closer association with their cities than their countries (e.g. Nirvana are associated with the 'Seattle scene', Happy Mondays with the 'Manchester scene', nobody ever talks about the 'American scene' or the 'English scene'), so again, it seems to be prioritizing national identity where it might not be appropriate. Cop 663 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see the flag icon as a can of worms, indeed there are clear cut cases, the cases that aren't are the problem, if an editor insists on using the Union Flag, which country does the band belong to, or is that because one member is from Wales, two from England and one from Scotland? What happens when a canuck joins the band, should it apply to the location where the band were formed, what happens when an Irish Nationalist band is formed in New Zealand (unlikely I know) do we use the unofficial Irish flag, the Union Flag or the New Zealand flag, what happens if the members themselves are Irish descent only and hail from different places? In all, the issue is best avoided entirely, the stated advantage of quicker recogntion is disputed by some editors, if the flag is 'easily recognised' (and who know which cultures easily recognise whole heaps of flags, or not as the case may be), the timing between recognition of the written word and the image cannot be so vast that allowing them and dealing with endless to and fro on cases that are not clear cut is a profitable excercise. Mind you I don't view many of the infoboxes themselves as all that beneficial (including the edit warring that goes on over them) so my view on this is somewhat coloured by that.--Alf melmac 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Flags have their place but we have gone berserk with them on Wikipedia. Flags should not be permitted to spread beyond uses that are inherently geo-political. Lightmouse 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't get apoplectic about it either. I mean, really, there are far more serious concerns. As for the hyperbole of the almost panicky-sounding "what if a Canadian joined the band?" bit, well, really, how is that any different from asking how the band should be identified in text? Questions like this are settled on a case by case basis at articles to which they apply just like any other question raised about what an article says. Is Monty Python identified as a British comedy troupe or a British and American one (Terry Gilliam being American)? This guideline doesn't care about and can't possibly try to address every possible odd or marginal case. As per normal, consensus-building at the talk page of the potentially affected article will resolve such questions. This guideline cannot take itself so seriously as to think it can address unusual cases. It simply can't. It gives general advice, and actual human thinking and discussion has to handle cases that do not fit those generalities. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I indented my post to comment about the idea that there is "nothing wrong with having a flag to identify their country of origin", specifically for band articles, sorry if that wasn't clearer. I'm not sure who you think is having a fit, but I'm certainly not, I'm just another administrator who sees endless warring over trivial matters and think a size nine boot is a better answer to allowing grounds for continuing edit warring. In other places where it is not the issue of warring, usage should be argued out on the talk page as you detailed. Monty Python, as one would hope, is pretty expertly worded - "the collective name of the creators of Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC on 5 October 1969." referring to Nationality (not origin as the part of the thread was talking about) in the infobox as "British (5 members) British, formerly American (1 member)", what better could be done? That is not the stance taken on the pages that the notion was advanced for. If this page is not the correct venue for such a discussion, where do you suggest the editors who voice this idea take the issue?--Alf melmac 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sorted Out Icons

I have sorted out the Link Dump by removing those without Creative Commons License and transfering those that do to Static Icons. Kathleen.wright5 13:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Icon size

How are these used at smaller sizes than shown here? I admit my obvious and deplorable ignorance on image editing. DGG (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag-related thread

I would be grateful if others could review the debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Flag icons and see if they have a view. --John 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is quite a bit of reading, but I recommend it. I've already thought of about a dozen ways to clarify the guideline. But I've left it alone for now. I've taken almost a two-month break from even looking at this document much less arguing and editing on it. Now I'm involved (above) in a debate about how to handle the political dimension of its wording, so I don't think it would be appropriate to make edits in that direction, even if they are not directly related to the Northern Ireland issue. Anyway, outbreaks like this one are precisely what we should be looking at - this is how MOSFLAG applies in the "real wikiworld", and its failures to do so adequately in its "version 1.0" state are quite instructive as to where we need to go with it next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of flag icons in infoboxes for military biographies

A discussion has been opened on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Flag icons are being added to and deleted from infobox fields showing place of birth, place of death, and other fields. Please feel free to contribute at the linked talk page section. Kablammo 15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The guideline cannot possibly be any clearer on this: Do not use flagicons for birth/death places, as they improperly imply a nationality/citizenship. This ought to be utterly, blindingly obvious to people working on military articles, since literally millions of war casualties are on foreign soil! Like, "duh!" — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of flags in navboxes

I am looking for more input in a disucssion located at Template_talk:Navbox#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_.28flags.29. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Flibirigit 08:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a large number of navboxes that have a single flag icon in the title bar, and I personally have no problem with that, although I can also respect the counter-argument that it isn't really necessary because it serves no functional purpose but is purely decorative. In my opinion, the use of this MOS page as rationale for removal of that single flag icon is something I was afraid would happen — using this guideline as a "free ticket" for widespread flag removal when the editor's personal reason for removal is more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrwsc 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My rationale for using it is that most English people would not recognize the foreign languages, but would more like associate with the flag. Flibirigit 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it depends on the situation. The Manual of Style suggests that flags should not be a substitute for a picture of the subject within an article's body. Whether that should be extended to templates is debatable, but the general rule of trying to illustrate the subject of the template, not just its nationality, might be helpful. For example, in Template:England topics it seems pretty harmless to have the England flag, since it represents England. But in the 'Malaysia Supercorridor' example at Template:Navbox, this seems to refer to a place in Malaysia, not to Malaysia itself, so the flag seems less useful than a picture or symbol of the actual place. I'm not sure about British hockey - maybe some little hockey stick with a British flag on it, so that you're saying 'hockey' as well as 'British'?! See Template:Britishfilmlist for an equivalent example. Cop 663 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Largely agree with that (as the principal author of the "not a substitute" material to begin with, I can attest that Cop 663's view of its scope is accurate, as to its written intent; it can be clarified if necessary, if the consensus view as to what it should mean has shifted). I think a hockey-stick-and-flag icon would be appropriate in that example, though not required. They aren't hard to make, either (see for example the Canadian soccer image I made, near bottom of User:SMcCandlish/Gallery; that took about 5 minutes). Not a big deal, really. An English hockey template would only be on a hockey article to begin with, so adding a hockey stick to the image wouldn't be particularly informative in most circumstances for most users; the sole exception might be someone who got to an article with that template from some kind of Sport in England overview article? Meh. Not worth dithering about, really. Agree that the Malaysia Supercorridor template would not need a Malaysia flag, but can't see that it does any harm either. This page's "decoration allergy" is a bit excessive. There is nothing wrong with images being used to make something look better, to an extent. The navbox issue is really the cases where a navbox's title bar is bracketed by redundant copies of flag icons, like "United States US Presidential Election 2008 United States" (to totally invent an example). I have seen this several, but not numerous, times and reduced cases like that to (to continue with the hypothetical example) "United States US Presidential Election 2008" when I find them, though I often feel no icon would be better. For me, it is better to clean up the overuse of the icons and not get reverted, than to insist than any/all use there would necessarily be misuse and get revert-warred for days or weeks over the matter. Incremental improvement is better than no improvement, and compromise positions generally result in consensus more often and more quickly than extreme ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this isn't a very serious issue, although in the Malaysia Supercorridor template the Malayasian flag is certainly harmless, but another image would be more appropriate (e.g. since the place in question appears to have its own logo, so it would be more logical to use that...). Cop 663 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, using the logo would be considered decoration, and against fair use of logos. Flibirigit (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of flags in election navboxes

Many election navboxes are created from Template:National elections, and are forced to put a flag icon in the title bar. I think it's worthwhile to bring up a discussion there for their removal. Andrwsc (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That template just needs simple conditional code such that if no flag= parameter is explicitly specified, it skips the flagicon code entirely, and further to not duplicate the flag in later sections unless one is explicitly specified for that section. With this option in place, esp. if the template doc said not to put a flag unless there's a consensus that doing so would be useful in a particular case, fewer editors would do so, and many of them could be removed with little or no complaint. PS: The issue of the navbox "forcing" editors to put a flag is that by including the flagicon template without a parameter, it shows the default "Earth" image. The flag and flagicon templates should also be fixed to stop doing this; if no country (or whatever) is specified, they should simply display a transparent image of the same dimensions (this will allow the template to be used to preserve spacing in tables and such.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 Fixed. I made none the default parameter for the calls to {{flagicon}} within Template:National elections instead of putting in some unnecessary complicating conditional code. Note that Template:Country data none is a special "no-op" template that renders nothing (i.e. output of {{flagicon|none}} is between here →←). I also changed Template:Country data to show a better image than that globe, so if any of the flag templates is called with no parameter at all, you see a more appropriate error indicator (i.e. output of {{flag}} is  [[|]]). Andrwsc (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why output a "?" pseudoflag instead of a transparent image the same size? Is there at least an option to do that? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The options available for template writers are {{flagicon|none}}, which renders nothing, or Template:noflag, which is often used to include flagless entries in lists that otherwise have flag icons, and the text is intended to be aligned. The output of {{flagicon|}} is intentionally set to the question mark because it is an error indicator. The flag templates should not be called with zero parameters. Using Image:Sin bandera.svg helps editors see there is a problem so they can deal with it. If a template writer wants to call flagicon with a parameter that can sometimes be absent, then the default should be explicitly set to none, as in my edits to Template:National elections. I do not want to lose the "error indicator" behaviour of a faulty call to flagicon by making the error silent. Andrwsc (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any particular reason to use {{flagicon|none}} vs. {{noflag}} or vice versa? I understand what you mean about the error indicator. I actually want to document this in WP:MOSFLAG, briefly, since it is a style guideline and should talk about styling of flags and tables using flags, as well as whether to use a flag or not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they do different things. {{noflag}} is used to render text (usu. a wikilink) for a flagless item in a list of otherwise "flagged" items. For example, look at the infobox of Tampa, Florida. Flag icons are attached to the country and state names, but not for the county name. Template:Noflag is used to align the three text items by placing a space of precisely the right size before the county name. {{flagicon|none}} or {{flagcountry|none}}, on the other hand, render nothing at all, not even a padded space. They would not be used directly as written, but are useful when {{flagicon}} or {{flagcountry}} are used within another template, and the country/state/etc. name is a parameter to that top-level template. none can be used as the default parameter to pass to the flag template if no flag is desired in a particular invocation. Template:National elections is a good example. In the example on that template's documentation page, flag = Denmark is used to cause the template to draw that flag in the title bar. If the flag parameter is missing, or flag = none is used, then no flag icon is drawn. Hope this helps, Andrwsc (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The swastika (again)

We now have the situation where a swastika is displayed on the same line as the name of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, an opponent of the Nazi regime who was incarcerated in a concentration camp. Talk:Nobel_Peace_Prize#RFC:_Country_data_in_Nobel_lists_closing_comments What message does this convey, "at a glance", or otherwise? Kablammo 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I commented there, but I think there's one issue that isn't entirely touched in the guidelines with respect to flag icons and tables. The use of flag icons in tables is for quick identification, especially with repeated entries as per WP:FLAG#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used. To have the same country name with a different flag attached to it depending on the date of the entry completely defeats the "visual aid" justification for using the flag icons in tables in the first place.--Boffob 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There used to be something about this in the MOS but it got deleted ages back, unadvisedly in my opinion. In situations like these you have to decide whether you're prepared to sacrifice historical accuracy for usability. Historically accurate flags are less useful as visual navigational aids. So we need to say in the MOS that the choice may boil down to (1) Make all the flags those of the modern country and sacrifice historical accuracy or (2) get rid of the flags. The decision should be up to the consensus of the editors working on the page methinks. Cop 663 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There's actually no consensus on this point, however. For example, the Olympics WikiProject has long insisted on using the historically accurate flags (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.) of the events in their time periods. Their rationale is pretty solid if you ask me, and the "just use the modern flag" idea simply isn't workable across the board, because it assumes that national entities don't change, only flags do. Obviously not true (i.e. Soviet Union, Yugoslavia again). Some MOSFLAG major editors have favored a "then just don't use flags" position, but I don't see any evidence that it has gained much traction even here, and even if it had that doesn't mean there is a WP-wide consensus on the issue, esp. since projects like the Olympics one predate this page by years, have many members and are quite productive. Their consensus to use flags, and use historical ones, is quite considerable. While I (for one) do think that this guideline is properly prescriptive to an extent, it cannot simply ignore current practice, per WP:POLICY which makes it clear that guidelines largely exist to record practice, not to make up a new and allegedly better practice. All of the MOS walks a fine line in this regard – it has to be prescriptive to an extent (because "actual practice" would otherwise be "whatever random style I happen to think of this time"). We should not cross that line but keep walking along it. It's a balancing act. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case of military history and sporting events, these historical flags were extensively used as a symbol of the country. There is a rationale to use historical flags there, because flags are an integral part of the events. In most other articles, historical flags are usually not so helpful, and often bring confusion or controversy. I got involved in the guideline discussions precisely because of misuse of historical flag icons (a Canadian Red Ensign for a birth place/date, next to the words Montreal, Quebec, with no Canada in sight, I thought it was an Ontario flag put there as vandalism). Birth and death flag icons in infoboxes were (and may still be) pretty common, and, just like trivia sections, the guidelines sometimes have to go against "common practice" because what works in most cases in common practice often has pretty glaring, problematic exceptions. The swastika outside of WWII related articles is probably the biggest example.--Boffob (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the difference between the military/sporting examples and the Nobel Prize Winners example is that the Nobel Prize one shows flags from across an entire century, whereas something like Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics covers just 1 year. It's perfectly fine to have 1936 flags in the latter, because once you've figured out which flag means 'Germany' or 'Italy', you can see the recurrences easily. But in the Nobel Prize example, you've got multiple different flags for the same country. That's when they become useless as a navigational tool. Cop 663 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Band infoboxes

I think this guideline strongly discourages the use of flags in band infoboxes, as it states:

  • Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting.
  • Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy. (I think this also applies to groups of people)

This case is akin to that of a person and her/his birth/death place. Furthermore, flags in band infoboxes cause other problems:

I have recently removed some of these flags, but another editor argues that they should be added back since there is nothing in the guideline that specifically refers to them, so I'm a bit confused. Could someone please clear this up? Mushroom (Talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This use of flags is every bit as problematic as their use in biographical infoboxes. In addition to all the usual problems, there are serious problems where a band has mixed origins. My Bloody Valentine is a particularly interesting and instructive case. Would those wishing for national flags in band infoboxes propose England, United Kingdom, United States or Republic of Ireland? Or a combination? It seems clear that imbuing bands whose members originate in several different countries with a flag is original research of the most troublesome and divisive kind. As a side note, it was a related edit war over which (if any) flag to display on the U2 article (Irish band with two English-born members) that helped form my opinions on flag usage on Wikipedia. I raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 4#Flags and saw no consensus (or even good arguments) for including flags. If any have developed since January, I would be keen to see them. Otherwise I think we can safely do without them in band articles. --John (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to start by saying that I do understand and respect the preceding opinions. My opinion on the subject is that the flags help to show diversity in music, especially as many bands' nationality(ies) are a focal point of their identity/image. It can also be a good way to find other similar bands. For example, say someone is glancing through the page for Nightwish. They may not notice the band's origin in Finland. If the flag icon is there, however, the person is more likely to notice the origin, and that may lead them to say, "I like Nightwish, so maybe I should check out other bands from Finland." I do realize that that's why there are usually links at the bottom of band pages saying "Finnish metal bands," but again, people may not notice that, or may not read that far. I think the flags are harmless and can only add to the page. And honestly, by removing the flag from a band's infobox, are you making the page better? Because I think the answer is no. Andy Campbell (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As you concede yourself, text-based categories are a much better way of doing this. Which flag(s) would you have on the My Bloody Valentine article? Why? --John (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
John, if a flag is used (and I don't think one should be used) it would be Ireland's flag. It is not the origin of the band members that determines the band's origin, it's where the band forms that determines its origin. So, since My Bloody Valentine formed in Dublin, it would get the Irish flag. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense certainly. My experience (with the U2 and other articles) would suggest that if the Ireland flag was used for a group which contains several non-Irish members and has been based in London for most of its career, unproductive edit wars would almost certainly ensue. This experience leads me to strongly agree with you that no flags should be used in instances like this where the 'nationality' of a band is unverifiable. The only possible exception I can see would be in the cases of bands who have verifiably represented a particular country, for example at Eurovision.
Stiff Little Fingers are another example. Can you imagine the furore if we tried to put Northern Ireland on the article about a band from the Nationalist community? --John (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that every band's infobox needs to have flags. Obviously, the examples given would cause problems and start edit wars and whatnot. However, those instances will be few and far between. Why take the flags off the pages where there is no problem? For example, Edguy is an all-German band that formed in Germany, that refers to itself as German metal ... what's the problem of including the German flag in their infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Managerpants (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with having flags in band infoboxes is the same as the problem with having flags for biography infoboxes: At first they are only added to non-controversial instances, but as soon as other editors start seeing them, they get the idea that every single infobox has to have a flag, and it sets off an avalanche of edit wars and debates. Better to just avoid the unnecessary controversy in the first place if you ask me. Plus, I think flag icons look quite tacky and unprofessional. Do we really want our infoboxes to start looking like trading cards? Kaldari (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A singular flag icon in an infobox really stands out, bringing undue weight to the band's origin. Perhaps this point (with the link to the WP:UNDUE reference) needs to be made more explicit in this MOS guideline. Andrwsc (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A flag is a powerful symbol, which is why totalitarian parties substitute their own insignia for the national flag. We have seen an instance where such a symbol (the swastika) have been placed, as a flag icon, next to the name of a person who not only opposes, but was a victim of, the ideology represented by that flag. That could happen with bands as well: musician and artists have been forces in opposition to authoritarian regimes, and eventually we will end up (if we haven't already) with flag icons placed next to the names of artists who oppose the ideology represented by that flag. And on a less extreme level, musicians often oppose nationalism; would John Lennon have wanted to have a Union Flag or the US flag next to his name?
We should not wade into this minefield for the sake of a little decoration. The icons in any event are duplicative of the text. Kablammo (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Those are excellent points. Andrwsc's point about undue weight is particularly well made. To take it to a not-so-ridiculous extreme; supposing Bono were to indicate that he hates nationalism and considers himself a citizen of the world, and that he is speaking on behalf of U2, should we then take down the putative Republic of Ireland and replace it with United Nations? Can you imagine the edit wars, protections, blocks, RfCs that might ensue? It really is not worth it for some decoration for which the best its strongest supporters can say is that it is 'harmless'. --John (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The "harmless" notion was hardly the best support given, and the user who said that flags look "tacky and unprofessional" is merely giving his aesthetic opinion, which is meaningless in this debate. Also, any talk of swastikas is immediately making this debate far more ridiculous than it already is. I understand where Andrwsc is coming from with the "undue weight" thing, but I disagree; if someone thinks that a band's origin has no impact over their music, they are sorely mistaken. The opponents of flags keep using these extreme examples to make their case, and that's just a sloppy way to argue. Every single case about anything can have extreme examples brought up that go against everything being said. Like I said, if the flags are going to cause a problem on a certain page, then leave them off. Fine. But on the pages where they cause absolutely NO problem, which is the vast majority, then why take them off? Andy Campbell (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Andy: I respect your arguments but I disagree. The example of the swastika is hardly ridiculous; it has occurred. Flag icons have been used in many locations in infoboxes and text. Arguments over exceptions are an unproductive use of our time (as, perhaps, is this whole discussion). John Lennon was critical of nationalism and of flags, should a flag occur next to his name? How many other examples, extreme or otherwise, exist? The reason why they should be taken off is a purely utilitarian one: In some cases they cause problems, in no case are they needed. Kablammo (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Andy, you seem like a nice guy but you aren't making sense. I've been involved in this discussion for almost a year and in all that time the only arguments I have ever heard in their defence are:
1) They look nice; but "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)" (from WP:IMAGES).
2) They help readers quickly see the nationality of the subject; but our readers can read and will be able to understand the national origin if it is stated in text. This also avoids giving undue weight or oversimplifying national origin, which is in many cases quite complex and debatable.
3) They do no harm; but they do cause enormous disruption when they are misapplied. The edit war at U2 was really quite nasty. I forget whether anyone was blocked over it, but perceived harmlessness is not a criterion for inclusion here. Usefulness is. --John (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can only imagine the furor that would erupt if someone added a flag to the Rage Against The Machine article, but someone not familiar with the band's politics could easily make that mistake. If, theoretically, we were to adopt an "only non-controversial use" policy for band infoboxes, what would be the criteria for deciding if it was controversial or not? Would we have to research every band's feelings about their country of origin or nationalism in general? Would we just have to try it out find out if other editors object? It seems like it would be a tricky think to guage. Kaldari (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, indeed. That article had a flag as recently as November 27, when I removed it. Whoever put it there no doubt thought that it was uncontroversial and improved the article. Flags however give undue weight to nationality almost wherever they are used, and should always be used with great caution and circumspection. When the flag icon is also original research (as in the case of bands), they should never be used. The arguments are as for biographies, but more so, because of the extra degree of unverifiability involved. --John (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
John, what am I saying that makes no sense? Just for the sake of understanding. Andy Campbell (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Andy, maybe I can best answer your question with another question. Besides being, in your opinion, harmless, what are the other selling points for you of using flags like this in infoboxes? --John (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
John, I wouldn't say that the flags being harmless is a selling point... only a counterpoint to the naysayers. As for what I think are the selling points, I will refer you to my first post in this section. And let me just add that I don't really think this is that big a deal at all. It seems to me that people are getting bent out of shape over what is, in my opinion, a harmless 25-pixel adornment. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one way or the other, regardless of what is decided here. It just seems like our time could be better spent cleaning up actual vandalism, rather than picking apart something that's not a big deal at all. Andy Campbell (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In your first post you seem to be confusing nationality of bands (which I agree can be interesting) with having a flag on every infobox. You then concede yourself that (text-based) categories are a more effective way of doing things. It seems to me you evince reasons 2 and 3 above. I believe I have adequately explained why I do not believe these 'reasons' constitute a sufficient rationale for having flags in bands' infoboxes. It's worth remembering this is the way round that we work here; if the flags were to be adopted they would need a consensus to be used. As one has never been (to my knowledge) demonstrated, and many (I think including this discussion) have shown consensus against having them, I think it has come time that removing them is appropriate. --John (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John, I don't believe that text-based categories are more effective... I just stated that I recognize their purpose. In fact, there are times when the clutter from the text-based categories at the bottom of an article is incredibly vast, and looks far more unprofessional than a simple flag ever possibly could. As for the supposed consensus against them: I hardly think that having 3 or 4 editors who agree would be considered a consensus, or a mandate for removal. I'm sure most editors don't even know there is an issue about it; I didn't know that a discussion on this topic existed until a few days ago, when Mushroom brought me into it. And let's also keep in mind, this isn't about flags being adopted... they already have been. They are already out there, on more band pages than not. And, I think that the reasons you and others have stated against them are just as weak as you see my reasons for keeping them. Believe me, if you all could offer some sound rationale for removal, I would concede the point, as I did when I found out the reason for not including flags in a person's infobox for "born" and "died." However, I keep hearing the same flimsy arguments, no offense.
  • 1) They don't add anything to a page. — I disagree, for the reasons I stated above relating to national identity and diversity in music.
  • 2) They can cause problems when mis-used. — So can anything! I'm sorry, but you can't use the one or two extreme examples to argue your point. As I said, the vast majority of bands out there will have no issue at all to contend with; you don't change policy to appease a very tiny minority.
  • 3) They add undue weight to band's nationality. — In the previous dicussion of this topic, way at the top of this page, someone made a good counterpoint to this. Following this logic, a photo of the band would add undue weight to their looks, the band's logo would add undue weight to their artistic idealogies, etc. Additionally, a tiny 25-px flag doesn't add undue weight to nationality any more than listing awards won, with the inevitable nationality-based awards listed. And to give an example, if you read the bio for Men at Work, you will be bashed about the head with the words "Australian" and "Australia." Why, then, would it be so terrible to have a tiny Aussie flag in the infobox?

Andy Campbell (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on this issue, in a previous section - Never use a flag for birth or death place... - I strongly approve of removing flags across the board on any band articles that still have them in, the edit wars are just not worth it. I don't like having to lock down pages, or if too late, block otherwise useful editors (who exceed 3rr for example) over such small issues such as these, I don't think any of my admin colleagues do either. I'd rather we bite the bullet and get back to working on content.--Alf melmac 12:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Alf, believe me, I'd rather get back to working on content too, and cleaning up actual vandalism. The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind here, and it just seems to me that there is no point in going around to band pages to remove flags when 1) they're not hurting anything, and 2) people are going to continue to add them. The long and the short of it is, there is nothing in the wikipedia guidelines against flags in infoboxes, so it seems a waste of time to keep removing them when there are REAL problems to fix, like keeping the constant stream of vandalism off of Hugo Chavez's page. Andy Campbell (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Sometimes they are hurting anything (see above), and (2) People will keep adding them while every band has a flag - but if bands don't have flags, people won't be so encouraged to keep adding them. Cop 663 (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Andy Campbell. I was involved in a discussion on this before: see #Never use a flag for birth or death place.... The biggest problem is this MOS. Band origin flags are not prohibited per this MOS, but the majority here clearly thinks flags don't belong in infoboxes. In fact, the majority thinks flags should be used sparingly (e.g. only in military and sports articles). This MOS should be changed to reflect that. Kameejl (Talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that that is a fair assessment of the general view, Kameejl. Andy, if people are going to keep adding them, surely other editors will keep removing them, that's my problem with the situation, while a lot may not be hurting anything, people have exceeded the three revert rule over it and probably will again, despite there being many better things to do. I would support a change in this MoS as Kameejl suggests.--Alf melmac 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the document already adequately addresses this. While there may be a majority of editors of this document who think that all flags should be removed from infoboxes, this is a clearly a self-selecting group of people, and they do not reflect a general Wikipedia-wide consensus to strip infoboxes of flags. Otherwise thousands of editors would not be adding flags to infoboxes. I think the role of this document is to say when this is a really, really bad idea, not to invent a micro-consensus to delete all flagicons against overwhelming majority usage. The document is as negative about flags as it can be and still be a consensus guideline. If it gets made even more negative it will have to redesignated {{Essay}} and renamed, because it will be a PoV-pushing piece. Anyway, see also John's comment immediately below, and other parts of this bands-related debate: There appears to be no difficulty using this guideline as presently written to get rid of flag cruft, ergo it is not broken, ergo there is no need to "fix" it. To the extent that some editors believe this guideline is being misapplied in the case of band infoboxes, that is a consensus discussion worth having, but the fact that the dispute exist has little if anything to do with this guideline's wording. Don't blame an inanimate tool for the actions of its wielder. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we already have sufficient consensus to remove them, under the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" section of the existing wording, as well as the "undue weight" argument and the "decorative images" argument. I have been removing inappropriate flags from infoboxes since a long time before I first saw this MoS section. However, if anybody wants to clarify the wording of the guideline to make it utterly clear that flagcruft isn't wanted in infoboxes, I wouldn't object. --John (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it before, these guidelines do not apply to band origin flags as I can find valid arguments to use them
  • Bands have an origin, no nationality that can be emphasized or mis-interpreted. A band has 1 origin. The example in the MoS is totally incompatible with band origin flags.
  • Undue weight is a far fetched argument as all images (band pics/logos/etc) would violate undue weight. Origin is often the first thing mentioned in band articles (<band X> is a <country Y> <genre Z> band) so it is an important aspect of a band.
  • The flags are as decorative in the origin section as they are anywhere (sports in particular), and are not merely decorative as they are quickly identifiable, making an infobox a quicker overview.
This MoS article should only show accepted flag use. What it does now is: Don't use it in case A, B, C and D, neither in cases Q to Z. What to do in case E, F or L? That's the whole problem, bands origin flags is such a case as it isn't clearly forbidden. These discussions are the proof this MoS isn't as clear as it should. Kameejl (Talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:POLICY: It is not the function of Wikipedia guidelines to prescriptively apply someone's strong opinion and force everyone else to go along. Guidelines codify best practices as established by consensus. There is a clear consensus against certain ab-, mis- and over-uses of flagicons, so those cases are enumerated. There is also a consensus for their use in tabular sports and perhaps military data, so these uses are mentioned. Ther is not a consensus for using them in other ways, such as a nationality/citizenship/origin indicator in infoboxes (nor a consensus against doing so; the issue remains open and indeterminate). Therefore the guideline is not in a position to say anything about it (other than that it is an open issue, I suppose). To do so would make this a PoV-pushing excercise, an {{Essay}} not a {{Guideline}}. Througout this Guideline's existence first as an Essay and then a {{Proposal}}, infoboxes were probably the number-one debate topic here, and no consensus was reached on the issue. That situation hasn't magically changed in the last couple of months. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
John, no offense, but you seem to be ignoring my point that there is not a consensus, because very few editors even know that this discussion exists. As I said earlier, 3 or 4 editors agreeing does not constitute a consensus or a mandate. In fact, I would say just the opposite... that the majority of editors would agree with me on this. I think you'll find that a huge number of people include the flag in the infobox, while it's just the same 3 or 4 of you removing them. And for Cop 663, I'll repeat that you can't use one or two extreme examples to prove a point. Here's the thing, guys (and gals): in actuality, there are very few of you who support going around and removing flags from infoboxes, while there are far more people who will be creating and editing band pages that include the flags. You handful can't possibly cover every band that is included on here, and as long as that's the case, you're never going to remove all the flags, and concordantly new pages are going to continuously pop up that include flags. In essence, you are fighting a losing battle, and it's over an utterly trifling issue! The fact is, nothing is being harmed by flags in band infoboxes, whether or not you think they are necessary. In those instances where edit wars happen, I know you'll be there to take care of it, but also remember that those edit wars will likely be occurring for reasons other than or in addition to a flag in the infobox. We like to use U2 as an example here, so I'll go along with that: edit wars are going to happen at U2's page not because of an Irish flag in their infobox, but because Bono is such a polarizing public figure. That's also why there is so much vandalism on Hugo Chavez's page. I know you are all very productive editors, otherwise you wouldn't be contributing to this discussion at all. But the fact remains, you are fighting a losing battle here. I'm not trying to be contrary or difficult, I'm just being realistic. I think all of our time would be better spent on something that isn't so petty, you know? Andy Campbell (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think you are both advancing positions that do not have consensus. A large number of editors like adding flag icons to infoboxes. A small number of editors, but editors who have thought about the issues more deeply in all probability, are very strongly opposed to this. Another indeterminate number of editors take a compromise position that some flagicon usages in infoboxes are okay, and that some aren't, and that one per infobox is enough in most cases (there are some sports ones where someone might have two or more in the list of national teams they've played for at bottom of box), and that none should appear in cases where it causes strife or confusion. Virtually everyone who has ever thought about it at all recognizes that using flagicons for birth/death places is a bad idea; we do have consensus on that one. That is about the state of it all. We are not going to get further consensus without compromise, I will bet on it. I take the described middle position myself, as I do not think any other position is likely to gain any further traction. Flag-killers and decorating-spree types will never agree from entrenched positions. If the former will just get over it and accept that they'll see some flag icons here and there, and the latter will get over themselves and realize that not everyone agrees with their personal aesthetic desire to put a flagicon everywhere it is possible to put one, then we might make some further progress. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No offence taken. I don't agree with you at all about the position of the consensus; not just in this discussion but in many, many previous ones, there has been no consensus to include national flags of origin in band infoboxes. If or when such a consensus were to be arrived at, you would have a point. As for the use of my time, as a volunteer here I do the work that pleases me best. Whether that is trimming unnecessary external links, trimming trivia, trimming stuff like "He has two cats, Tibbles and Fang", trimming language like "It should be noted that...", or removing redundant flags, I don't need a specific consensus to do any of these things, as an experienced editor I have a good feeling for what does and doesn't belong in encyclopedia articles and I trust myself to get it right, following my reading of and understanding of the guidelines we have agreed to follow as a project.
Here is another fact for you to think about; in the last month I have removed in excess of 1000 flag icons from articles. I am only aware of a tiny handful (4 or 5) which were changed back after I edited them, and I have received a total of 0 comments about these removals. This would seem to rule out the idea that there are a 'majority of editors' who agree with you. --John (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A total of 0 comments? What about my comments? And I believe I'm not the only one who commented. Kameejl (Talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
John, to be honest, I don't think we're going to get a consensus either way, because this issue is so silly. As for the work you do, that sounds pretty much exactly like what I and most others do. In fact, with the sole exception of the flag thing, your description sounds exactly like me. Again, like I said, I'm not trying to be contrary or difficult, I just happen to disagree with you on this issue.
And for your fact, I would guess that the reason they haven't been changed back is that the original editors didn't notice yet. The fact that you removed 1000 flag icons, though, would suggest to me that the majority of editors agree with me, because otherwise those flags wouldn't have been there in the first place, you know? With the obvious exception of vandals, I'm sure people don't put stuff in articles that they feel is inappropriate.
I'm pretty much tired of talking about this, because it's clear to me that this discussion isn't going to actually solve anything. It's obvious that nobody is going to change their opinion, and that a consensus will never be reached, especially since this debate has apparently been raging all year long. I'm guessing that it's going to just continue to be business as usual.
I wish you all happy editing, and I'll see you 'round.  :-) --Andy Campbell (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I know I am entering this conversation over a month late, but I was just notified of this discussion after quite a few of my flagicon deletions were reversed saying there was no consensus here to delete them. One point I would like to bring up that no here yet has done. Template:Infobox Musical artist states in the Origin field "Note: as for "Born" and "Died", there is no need to additionally place a {{flagicon}} to represent the nationality." And the way the infobox is set up any time a flagicon is added to the origin field the name of the country will appear next to it. So anytime a flagicon is used in a band infobox it would violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Help the reader rather than decorate. Aspects (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this just isn't the case. A band is different than a person, in that the flag is not for nationality, but country of origin, so it does not violate the MOS. Thus the big debate. :-) --Managerpants (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Willis example

Is this a good example? Aren't military bases foreign soil, or is that only embassies? TJ Spyke 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean bases of one country in another, depends on the arrangments between the countries, as I understand it; i.e. a blanket statement would probably not work. In any case, a large number of US military brats born abroad (like my sister) are not born on-base. Dunno about Willis. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting news story

It seems our colleagues on de have had some problems with swastikas.--John (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment?

This one gave me pause, after all the debate we have had here about flags, accuracy, etc. They had the modern flags of the US and UK, for a subject who died in the late 18th century! If anything could serve as a good example of how flag use can mislead, this type of usage is surely it. --John (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Washington example has been raised a number of time above and the if the flags where not removed and readded they should of been removed Gnevin (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Senior Clubs" section in footballers' infoboxes

Resolved

I'm asking you to review the policy on using flags in the "senior clubs" sections of footballers' infoboxes. I know that many users tend to overuse flags, but in such cases flags are often essential. I propose using 15px flags instead of typical flagicons, I've tried viewing such infoboxes with IE, Firefox and Opera. Works just fine with every browser. It's especially important when we're speaking about less notable players from "smaller" clubs, where it's difficult to say whether a certain player has played abroad or not and if he did, what league did he play in. That's the reason why all the major websites, providing players' stats, use such flags. See: Playerhistory, Soccerassociation and National Football Teams.

I'll use an Estonian player as an exaple:

  • version 1 - very difficult to establish player's notability at a glance, especially if you've never heared of Kuressaare, Zirka and Sodovik before.
  • version 2 - Limited use of flags makes the whole thing more illustrative and informative.

At the same time, I think there is no point in using flags in the "National team" section, by putting them next to country names. Thanks for your time people BanRay 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this type of flag usage, as it is verifiable (although there are always problematic questions like which flags to use for Cardiff City F.C. or Berwick Rangers F.C.). Unlike many infobox uses, this one actually adds utility. I agree with making them slightly smaller too, so as not to be visually overwhelming. --John (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is useful, but the only problem is that the reader is expected to recognise the flags of Estonia, Latvia, etc. on sight. Few English readers can do that. So you need to find a way of adding the country name at least once (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Accompany flags with country names), either with a key at the top, or by including the country name after the club name. Cop 663 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I see where you coming from Cop, but adding country names would stretch the whole thing, same with division numbers (such info would've been useful, but no chance we can fit all that stuff there). Some people may not be able to recognize flags of Estonia and Latvia (although football fans tend to know flags very well and, I think, would be able to recognize the vast majority of the countries with pro/semipro leagues at least), but then there are people who have never heared of such states as Estonia and Latvia. After all, if you can't recognize some particular flag, you can simply click on the club's name or on the flag itself, it's still easier than clicking on every club on the list. BanRay 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you have to click on something to learn what it means, it defeats the 'utility' argument. If you're interested in utility, the most useful thing is to ditch the flag and put the country name in brackets afterwards (and if it won't fit in the infobox, well make the infobox wider - there is tons of blank space between 'Years' and 'Club' that is being wasted at the moment). Don't get me wrong, I believe the flags are useful as an 'at a glance' visual aid, but only if the country name is given as well - especially since flags that look similar are even harder to distinguish when shrunk down to 15px. Cop 663 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course some particular flags might be difficult to recognize, but I don't think "it defeats the utility argument" altogether. After all, you won't have to click on every single club, trying to understand where it comes from, since, most of the flags, especially flags of countries with professional or semi-professional leagues, are very well recognizable. Don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything against using country names if someone finds a way we can squeeze them in, but as for now a mere permission to use 15px flags would be an improvement. BanRay 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The other point to note here is that by using {{flagicon}} (with size=15px), you get the alt attribute set, so most browsers will display "Flag of Estonia" when the mouse hovers over the icon. This is not as clear as the country name being shown as text in the infobox, but it is better than nothing... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Very good point, that actually makes country names unnecessary or at least not essential. BanRay 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I do like the flags, but if we're going to allow these with country names, we have to rewrite the relevant section of the MoS. And I do think this is a sensible rule... do people know you can get the country name by waving the mouse over flags? I didn't. And it seems odd to make an exception for Estonia and Latvia of all places! But maybe I'm the only person who thinks this. Cop 663 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Why Estonia and Latvia? The Estonian player was just a random example, I'm speaking about infoboxes in general. Anyway, I get your point, thanks for the opinion Cop. BanRay 15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has opposed the proposal, I wonder If I can proceed with this? The discussion has been dead for a while and I'm still waiting on the decision. Cheers. ? BanRay 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that no one has opposed this because no one at WP:FOOTY was even aware of the discussion! There have been extensive discussions at WP:FOOTY on this matter, and it was determined that flagicons should not be included in infoboxes as it causes issues with the alignment of years, clubs and apps(goals). If someone really needs to know where a club is from, they can click on the club's name, as it should be wikilinked. Most of the time, the country the club is from can be derived from the country the player is from or where they are playing at the minute anyway.
P.S. this discussion should be linked to at WP:FOOTY, as it is a huge stylistic issue that concerns the entire project. – PeeJay 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As I've already said above, I've tried it with IE, Opera, Netscape and Firefox, works just fine. BanRay 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chucking my tup-pence in. I hate them. Plain and simple. Too garish and pretty unnecessary. You will end up with incorrect flags because of change of countries, affiliations, etc. I simply don't see the point in them. It isn't relevant to a player's career. Too much style over substance for me. Peanut4 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that a player's club is from a certain country doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If it must be mentioned, it should be mentioned in the main body of text, not in the infobox, and therefore not as a flagicon. – PeeJay 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, how often do you see clubs change their affiliation? Not very often I suppose. Basically every single website with this kind of stats use such flags and they do it for a reason. You might find them unnecessary if you work mostly on uk-related articles, I tend to edit a lot of arfica- and ex ussr-related articles and having to click on every MZKT and Beyelsa is quite frustrating. If you simply don't like them, it's whole different story though, but such flags are useful. BanRay 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If they're ex-USSR, then they should have the old USSR flag, because that was the country they represented at the time and therefore would be of no use to find out which country they are in now. If it's that important put it in the lead, e.g. for Roger Milla. He played in his own country before moving to France to X, Y and Z. Some people won't know what flags are for what country and will have to click on it anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
They don't have the old ussr flag, I'm speaking about the former soviet republics. BanRay 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Peanut and PeaJay. They are simply unnecessary and should be removed from articles about players entirely in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what the infobox with flags looks like on this computer (IE6):

So I tend to remove the flags when I see them. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The flags in the infobox display poorly on my browser and mess up the tables. They add very little information as you can use the wikilinks to quickly find more information about the clubs if needed. Remove them please. Jogurney (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that Internet Explorer again, why do you people even use that crap browser (although I've tried it with IE7 and it looked just fine), but yeah, seeing the screenshot above, we probably shouldn't use them, although I don't think I'll be using infoboxes in my future articles, as I find them pretty useless in their current state. Having to click on every club trying to determine where and wich division it comes from, is nothing but pain in the back. I'll think of some new table/box that would be both more informative and useful to a reader. BanRay 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the infobox is only meant to be an overview - further information can be found in the prose of the article, or through links. Most lists of a player's career in other media take the simple years-club-apps/goals form. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
IE6 before Sp1 dose have problems for the flags. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70118w0002.htm
  2. ^ FIFA- Northern Ireland
  3. ^ UEFA- Northern Ireland
  4. ^ Commonwealth Games- Northern Ireland
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_2&oldid=1136422177"