Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Templates

Discussion of potential interest over at Template talk:National Register of Historic Places#Icon - Edit request, where an editor has requested the removal of the (American) National Park Service logo from the template on the basis that it is merely decorative. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't use icons instead of text

Didn't there used to be a guideline here that said that icons (and other images) shouldn't be used in cases where text could easily perform the same job? I'm sure such a guideline exists on Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it any more. Is it possible it's part of another MOS page? – PeeJay 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It use to say words are clearer but can't find the rev Gnevin (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Flags in navbox template

Are the flags in {{Red Cross Red Crescent Movement}} ("National Societies" list) appropriate? To me they look like unnecessary decoration which just makes the page slower to load. I can't see any mention of navboxes in MOS:ICON. Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes are with in the scope of MOS:ICON and WP:ICONDECORATION in particular, flags like that are no helpful and should be remove in my opinion Gnevin (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Input required

Can users have a look at some of my edits such as [1] which User:Fry1989 says that I've Again you have a severe misunderstanding of that policy. Thanks Gnevin (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You do have a misunderstanding of the policy, and having gone through your past edits where you continue to remove flags for YOUR perceived violation, there is another user who has also reverted your change stating you have a misunderstanding. That is in regards to the Template:United States topics, where you removed the US flag from the template, and User:Moxy reverted stating you misunderstand the policy MOSICON. There are now two users who do not believe you know what you're doing. Fry1989 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly this is a guideline not a policy. I will not deny I've been revert in the past, however that vast majority of my edits have been accepted Gnevin (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that two users, myself and Moxy, have concern over your understanding and application of the policy. Fry1989 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hense why I've asked others for an opinion. We will see Gnevin (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say, Gnevin, that you consider this MOS guideline to advocate the exclusion of flag icons? If not, in what circumstances do the guidelines recommend they could be used? Daicaregos (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This MoS is about the sensible usage of icons. Usage such as the infobox at Battle_of_France and Six_Nations_Championship#Trophies are appropriate to me as they help in navigation or add additional relevant information Gnevin (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is, therefore, completely subjective; 'sensible' to one editor may not necessarily be 'sensible' to all. Would you consider yourself to be one of the more hardline wing of the exclusionists as far as the use of icons is concerned? Perhaps you may consider withdrawing from an article if you (alone) find opposition from more than one editor? Daicaregos (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the terms hardline or exclusionists. Do I apply MOSICON a lot? Yes but in some cases to icon that perhaps others here would not remove. I've withdrawn from several articles where opposition has arisen, this is after all only a guideline . The issue I would like clarified is have I misunderstood the guideline and as such misapplied it. My contention is I haven't Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "over-applied" is a better term then. Fry1989 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, both versions [2] [3] of that navbox are horrendous. One is an unintelligible collection of acronyms and smaller-than-normal and non-aligned flag icons, and the other is a wall of text. Gack. Perhaps this is an instance where a category is vastly superior to a navbox? As for how this guideline is applicable, it clearly fails the suggestion to "Accompany flags with country names" and perhaps "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Andrwsc, regarding that template, I have no opinion over either version. My only contest was Gnevin's removal of the EU flag in the title section, despite relevance and consensus. How the rest of the template is aranged can be decided by the community outside of my inclusion. Fry1989 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Daicaregos, the problem is that Gnevin seems to feel that any visual addition to a template is a vio, regardless of long-standing consensus or relevance. I can give dozens of examples where he has removed icons, whether it be a flag (as it most always is), or when he removed the red star from the Communism sidebar, just because he appears to believe these templates should be completely bare because of the MOSICON guideline. He removes them despite that they add to the template, rather then detract or over-saturate. Fry1989 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
How do they add. Just because you like it doesn't mean everyone else will Gnevin (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Three reasons. Direct relevance, longstanding consensus, and that it is a common format widely adopted on here in the majority of templates Wikipedia-wide. Fry1989 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly dispute all three reasons. There is significantly stronger consensus for images to appear within the navbox, using the image= and/or imageleft= parameters, for example, rather than on the title bar. To verify this, I sampled 1,000,000 pages that transclude {{Navbox}} (one million was AWB's limit, even with the "no limits" plug-in available to administrators). There were 41,686 different navbox templates in this large sample. Of those, 1785 had tiny images in the title bar, or about 4.3%. But 10,750 templates had images inside the box, or 25.8%. That is a 6:1 ratio of preference for larger images within the navbox versus tiny images on the title bar. And that's precisely the approach that would be best with {{European People's Party}}. Ideally, we would have File:EPP logo.svg inside the navbox, since that image is directly relevant, but because it is non-free, we can't. Putting a tiny version of the European Union flag on the title bar is not the next-best thing, since that image is only tangentially relevant. The EU flag might be a directly relevant image for {{European Union topics}}, if someone wanted it there, but not for any random topic that happens to have "Europe" in the name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My input: This is a dog's breakfast. It look's like the dog ate pizza and vomitted it up. So that's appearances, and useability is not much better. It's extremely difficult and clunky to comprehend. The entities are not easily indentifiable by either the flags or the abbreivations. Start by removing the flags and probably the abbreviations too. The current version is both an improvement visually and for readability. It is however too big. I suggest wrapping text and considering separating the words using bullet points as in this template. Further, there should be no European Union flag in the header. It provides no encyclopaedic purpose and looks dicky and should accordingly be removed to be in accordance with the MOS. --Merbabu (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrwsc, if we were only talking about the EPP template, then yes, you would be right. But Gnevin has removed flags from templates where they are directly relevant, such as removing the US flag from a US template HERE, and another user reverted his change saying he misunderstood the application of the policy. That is what is at the heart of this discussion, not a single template, but the overall application by Gnevin of this policy where he alone feels it's a vio, despite the relevance and consensus. As I've said before, it appears to me that he feels ANY image is a vio, or a "wasteful unrequired decoration" if you will. I on the other hand, don't believe that's what the policy means. I believe it's for over-saturation and irrelevant images, not just to remove any and all images from templates because it's a "decoration". Fry1989 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that some of Gnevin's edits have been over-aggressive, perhaps, with respect to this MOS guideline, but he is correct much more often than not. And with respect to {{United States topics}}, I agree that a tiny icon in the title bar is not very helpful. If you want decorative images in that navbox, put a larger image or two (like the flag and maybe a map) within the navbox body, per the strongly preferred style. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a matter of opinion, and long-standing consensus would suggest otherwise. Fry1989 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Eh? See above. Long-standing consensus is that images are preferred inside navboxes instead of on the title bar. (Although, image-free navboxes are the norm, by far.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of examples that would disagree with you. Wht I mean by long-standing consensus is that when an image has been in place for a great time, then it clearly has been accepted by the community as it is. That is consensus. Fry1989 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course there are plenty of examples; I estimate there are 60,000 pages that feature navboxes with tiny images on their title bars. It might seem lame of me to bring up WP:Consensus can change, but there it is. In fact, this entire MOS section was written long after flag icons started sprouting up all over the place and several editors concerned about Wikipedia quality agreed to the guidelines here to make sure that only the "right" kind of usage was kept. Many pages have been brought into alignment with MOSICON, but clearly not 100%. The time it takes to complete this work does not provide an "anchor" to render certain pages exempt from the Manual of Style. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989 , will you please stop reverting my edits. Your contention that I misunderstood this MoS has been refuted by the editors here. Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more complicated then that. There are users here who do feel you either misunderstand, mis-apply, or over-apply(whichever term you prefer) the guideline. Which is what it is, a guideline, not a absolute rule. Also, you have made some edits claiming that consensus has changed from where it once was. I'm sorry, but 2 people does not consensus make, as much as you may like. Fry1989 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not Gnevin that needs to show that he's working within the MOS. He is. --Merbabu (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, he applies the guideline over-aggressively. Icons can be useful, fast navigators. Lighten up. Daicaregos (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No, others are over-aggresive in their use. There is no evidence they aid navigation, and "lighten up" is a an even flimsier argument. --Merbabu (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I gave my opinion (as requested). That is yours. And just to clarify: "lighten up" is a request, not an argument. Daicaregos (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I presumed it was OK to reply to your opinion. Silly me. But, if I may break the "no-reply rule" again, I see you have not provided evidence that they aid navigation - merely "opinion". OK then, I request no more "lighten up" requests. --Merbabu(talk) 23:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted. MOSICON used to say it was acceptable to use them as icons were an aid to navigation. But it was removed. Guess who. Perhaps it should be re-instated. Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Find some evidence its true and I will be more than happy to re-add it Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
PS WP:ICONDECORATION still has the navigation argument, the readers who scan argument was removed Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please stop having a running revert war over a bunch of icons on extensively used EN:WP Templates like Template:JewishPolishHistory. Civilization will not end if there are a few extra icons on Wikipedia pages. Icons on pages & templates are VERY useful when appropriately used. WP:MOSICON is a GUIDELINE. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the hyper bole is helpful here no one claimed civilization will end or that this is a major important issue in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps you would offer up your opinion on what is appropriate usage . Yes MOSICON is a guideline which mean you should offer up a decent reason for ignoring it not just WP:ILIKEIT Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's my view. Some people like them, some people don't. However MOSICON is only a guideline. Gnevin is treating it like an absolute rule. Unless the images over-saturate or impede viewing and interaction with the templates, I would suggest they be left in. Especially when they're directly relevant, such as the red star being a symbol of socialism in that template, or the star of David being a symbol of the Jews in the Judaism template. And again, when it's been there for a significant time, that would suggest it's been accepted by the community as appropriate for the template. It is Gnevin who is over-reaching his bounds, and there are now 4 users who have either reverted or directly disagreed with his removals. Fry1989 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of wikipedia "rules" are actually guidelines. We all follow most of the MOS religiously without even thinking about it. MOSICON is very clear about icons - particularly flags, which provide no encyclopaedic content, and no evidenced (let alone proven) navigational assistance. Certainly nothing that cannot be provided by bullet points and/or good setting out. Flags and most other little icons are like "trivia" and "controversy" sections, and text without references - they were once thought to be helpful by some editors, but once wikipedia matured in the last few years, they are slowly but surely being deemed inappropriate and being removed. Let's face it, flags look like little bits of pizza pieces throughout articles.
There are some icons I think are OK - those are well-encapsulated and bordered within templates, rather than just thrown in because we can. Examples of "good" icon usage in my view are Template:JewishPolishHistory and Template:History of Indonesia, whereas poor icon usage examples are Template:World's_most_populous_metropolitan_areas and This. --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
What do the icons added to Template:JewishPolishHistory and Template:History of Indonesia add? They are loosely associated to the topic at best. It's like putting a Shamrock and Rugby ball on a template about Irish Rugby Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The photos add to the readability, comprehension, visual interest and professionalism of the template. The History of Indonesia is really nice - a country outline superimposed on a flag with two symbols of the country and a brief timeline on the bottom - visually interesting and informative. There is a reason why "a picture is worth a thousand words". Ajh1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2. Gnevin:) Some are saying you are over zealous with your interpretation of MOSICON. I am saying that generally I agree with you. These appear to be two examples when I don't agree with you. --Merbabu (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand what your saying, what I don't understand is what advantage you think having these icons has? Gnevin (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because YOU (and you alone in many cases) feel they don't add anything, doesn't make you right, nor does it give you th eright to impose your view(by repeatedly removing them) against those who disagree. That's why Template:JewishPolishHistory was put under protection. Because you repeatedly removed them, despite 4 people disagreeing. Several people here (myself included) mention consensus. Well, what is consensus worth when one person can be allowed to impose his personal opinion over otyhers without a discussion, or when there is a plurality who say he is wrong? Notice even Merbabu, who generally has agreed with you throughout this discusison, even disagrees and feels that the icons in that template are appropriate. Fry1989 (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
In Gnevin's defence, he's actually the only one here whose argument is backed up by wikipedia policy and guideline's. All other arguments are based on "I like" and (alleged) numbers of editors. And say what you want, this discussion shows that others are defending their positions just as aggressively as Gnevin. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is a guideline not a hard and fast rule. My beef is with Gnevin's removal of the images from Template:JewishPolishHistory which have been in place for a period of time. I view the removal of the images as an arbitrary action to a stable template used by a number of articles in the subject area. You both were within a hair's breath of violating WP:3RR and probably would have violated it if I hadn't intervened and invoked WP:RPP. The template does not violate any of the aspects outlined in WP:MOSICON: 

   * 1.1.2.1 Do not use icons in general article prose
   * 1.1.2.2 Encyclopaedic purpose
   * 1.1.2.3 Do not use too many icons
   * 1.1.2.4 Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope
   * 1.1.2.5 Do not distort icons
   * 1.1.2.6 Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas
   * 1.1.2.7 Remember accessibility for the visually impaired

Ajh1492 (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the templates violate WP:ICONDECORATION but that's just me Gnevin (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Any excuse to have your way and get them removed, isn't it. You tried MOSICON (that IS what you put in the edit summaries every time for that Jewish-Polish template), and now that's been shot down, you're trying ICONDECORATION. Fry1989 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Fry, are they not both short cuts to the same page? --Merbabu (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is still nowhere in those guidelines where icons are forbidden. Gnevin is using a hatchet on a job that needs a scalpel, and I am under the impression that he simply doesn't like icons anywhere, and believes all templates should be completely bare. Atleast that's what his actions would suggest. Fry1989 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Wiki as a whole expressly forbids very few things for example WP:N is a guideline as is WP:RS. The point is if your ignoring this MoS it should be for a very good reason and I like it is not a very good reason. Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
WHERE(and I sincerely dare you to try and find it) have I reverted one of your changes, or inserted icons myself just because "I like it"? You'll never find it because I've never said that, nor has any of the other people who disagree with your removals. So let's just get that straight right now. Fry1989 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The only reason I can see that you offered up is that , 1 that I misunderstood this MoS, this is not the case. So the only reason I can discern for your refusal to accept this guideline is that you like the icons. WP:ICONDECORATION is very clear Icons should not be added only because they look good Gnevin (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only myself, several people have an issue with your understanding or application of the guideline. You may still think you are right, but cleary that is in question. And also, nobody here has suggested to keep icons in "because it looks good". We have all citied direct relevance of the icons we either added or kept. If you want this discussion to go any further, you need to step up your argument, and make it factual, rather then based on your personal opinion, because right now your words look rather foolish. Fry1989 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Direct relevance isn't a vaild reason per [[User:Andrwsc] who put it far better than I could and secondly the only one in this entire discussion of people who have help craft this Guideline who think I've misunderstood is you. The facts are ICONDECORATION says icon shouldn't be added if the don't provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout. These flags don't provide useful additional information as the name of the country is in text beside it and not all blurry and they don't provide any navigational or layout help Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I have also contributed to the guideline. Daicaregos (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, are you saying I've misunderstood this Mos and if so how ? Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Images vs. icons

(putting this in a new subsection; hopefully discussion will be more productive than above)

One potential failure of this guideline is that it doesn't define "icon" very well, especially with relation to other images. The hatnote says For the purposes of this guideline, icons are any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags, but "small" is a relative term. As a result of this incomplete definition, we have instances where clearly decorative images are being removed from navigation templates, citing this guideline. And we don't usually have a problem with "normal" images being used to decorate articles. Now, the WP:navigation templates essay does say Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative, and I mostly agree. I think that decorative images need to be directly relevant. But if they are, they shouldn't be removed strictly because they are decorative. As I discovered previously, about 25% of templates that use the {{navbox}} meta-template make use of the image= and/or imageleft= parameters, so this is clearly a desirable feature. The maps used in all US county templates (e.g. {{Clark County, Nevada}}) or the scales of justice in {{Criminal law}} (and many other law templates) are both effective decorations, I think. In the first instance, it is useful to locate the county within the state. In the second case, a well-known symbol is used to associate a series of articles together under a common umbrella. But I object to simply slapping a flag image in the navbox (or worse, a flag icon on the title bar) just because the template is tangentially related to the flag's region. That's the difficulty here, I suppose, is enforcing what may be a subjective decision, about what is "directly related" or not. But perhaps if we can make progress in describing that in the MoS, it might diffuse some of the arguments such as we have above. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For me this is not about the defining what is and isn't an icon it's about the file being useful ,relevant and additional information . So in the case of {{Clark County, Nevada}}) it shows the user where the county is located in the state of Nevada,its size ,shape and boarders words simply would convey this information, however {{Criminal law}} would loose no additional information if I was to remove the scale , in fact it is distracting at least for me ,instead of seeing Criminal law Part of the common law series as the header I get some scales which make no sense until I read the title Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The big issue, from my point of view, is that , if you think an icon shouldn't be part of a navbox, especially when it has been there for some time, you should bring your arguement to that navbox's talk page, not unilaterally remove it while citing this guideline. This guideline does not mandate anything (it's not policy) and "local consensus", for lack of a better term, is what determines the contents of a navbox. Given the relative frequency that images are used in navboxes, I don't see how this guideline can be seen as trumping that local consensus. (I believe that guidelines are often as subject to WP:CONLIMITED as any other project or article, as there are usually just a few regular contributors.) oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Opening a discussion for each icon is too time consuming and the vast majority of my removal have not been revert which should than this guideline is widely and generally accepted . I generally remove the icon , point to here in the edit summary and if it's re-added with any attempt to justify it (aka not just undo and default message) I will leave it be. WP:RS and WP:N don't mandate anything but if you post an article about the local stray dog you better be sure you have WP:N establisted by WP:RS you can't just turn up at the AFD say I like it so it will stay Gnevin (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Most probably haven't been reverted because they haven't been discovered. However, I bet if more people were paying attention, this conversation would have started long before now. As said, you don't have the right to unilaterally remove things without a discussion when there has been consensus for a long time that those things be included. It's rude, and you know it. That you say "it takes too long" suggests to me that you want these images gone right away, no matter what others thing or the guidelines that apply say. I have nothing more to add to this discussion. It's clear Gnevin that you have no interest in an actual argument or in being corrected where you have erred, but more in defending all your actions, even ones that are controversial. Fry1989 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Gnevin has been using this guide as a false badge of authority ever since he started it with the weak consensus of 6 like-minded editors who knew that it was way too bold [4] and over reaching WP:CREEP when it moved in to the territory of images. Wikipedia already has a policy regarding WP:Images. But he side-stepped it with this guide and has been treating it like policy ever since with the repeated use of the word "violation." The reason why he bypasses discussion on the article pages and sites this guide is because he's banking on the average user not knowing the difference between a policy and a guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzm snore ,try something new! Gnevin (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Take your own advice and try something new yourself. Everyone is on to your own little personal taste crusade against icons. Think about why your name keeps coming up whenever there's a complaint about misuse of the MOS. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not try and make it about one editor, rather than the matter at hand. Ie, I'm sure you dont' need a link to the page of being civil. If you'd like to throw out the MOS, one doesn't do it by making it about Gnevin. Since you bring up personal taste, in what way is this not about your personal taste? The last things we need is rudeness. --Merbabu (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but there is only one editor who doesn't seem to care to open discussion on the article talk pages to see whether the icons mean anything or not. There's only one editor who's name keeps resurfacing in complaint after complaint from multiple users regarding careless removal of icons. Face the facts.
It's this simple. If an editor (such as Gnevin) suspects that the icon is decoration, he should raise the question of meaning other than decoration on the article talk page. If nobody can provide meaning other than decoration after a reasonable period of time depending on how often the page is edited, then he can say for certain that the icons are meaningless decoration. If he is not willing to wait for feed back, then it's obvious that he is removing icons out of personal taste. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to insist in making it about Gnevin's record of behaviour on this issue and not the matter at hand, then you need to take it to ANI. However, other involved editors', including the reporting editor, often find their own behaviour and previous input also put under the microscope.
Well, there's personal taste and personal taste, isn't there? Both are kind of a dead end. --Merbabu (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not Gnevin's behavior alone that's the problem. It's Gnevins behaviour in conjunction with this WP:CREEP of a guide. You can't deal with one without dealing with the other. If someone were to take it to an administrator, then Gnevin would claim that he was just following the guide. But it's the guide that he expanded and skewed to justify his behavior. If you examine the guide, the ambiguity doesn't seem like a problem until you observe how Gnevin is applying it. If he wasn't both a major editor and the primary enforcer of this guide, it wouldn't be a problem. But instead he edits and applies the guide in the worst possible way. He brings out the worst in the guide. That's why approaching 3 years later, the same type of complaints from multiple users are coming to this talk page about the same issues and the same person. Gnevin's behavior and the problems with the subjectivity of this guide are intrinsically linked. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The question is, of course, what can be done to change it? Daicaregos (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. How do you know he's the primary enforcer of the guide? He might be one of the primary participants here (as you have been oicumayberight) but you couldn't possibly know across wikipedia. Funny, i thought the guide was fairly clearly. No flags, etc. Yet there's always discussion of exceptions. --Merbabu (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Gnevin usually isn't too far away from a flag-related discussion. That's not a judgemental statement on the quality of his contributions: I've found myself agreeing with his position several times, and disagreeing several times. But I don't think the suggestion that he spends a fair proportion of time applying it to the letter is baseless. The follow-on accusations are in my view subjective. The one thing I would say is that while the ambiguity in this guideline is deliberate and reflective of a lack of consensus, it causes problems. While I'm not suggesting that this guideline should be scrapped, I do believe that (somehow) it should be written from scratch. —WFC— 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No objection to a rewrite. This time around, however, those drafting the rules must not be the same editors who subsequently police them. Daicaregos (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
A rewrite would be an improvement. And I agree that the rule editors shouldn't be the rule enforcers. But I'm skeptical if it's possible to write parts of this guide objectively, especially with regards to generic images. Sometimes instruction creep can't be fixed. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Pure nonsense , this the way wiki works a user sees a problem, they write an essay or proposal, others agree it's a problem and expand it, others disagree and re-factor it , after a while people say hey this makes sense lets call it a guideline (or not as the case maybe) and the process of edits continues . Those interested in the subject are going to edit the guideline, they after all are the ones at the coalface and who often understand the problems the guideline is intended to address. Every essay, guideline and policy on wiki is applied both by those have have helped in it's creation and those that haven't. Disbarring editors who edit guidelines from applying the is one of worst ideas I've seen on wiki .
Also my head is getting super big , it's great to be talked about n all , but how about suggesting some changes to the guideline instead of bashing out the same old routine about it's all that big bad Gnevin's fault. I've no objections to a total rewrite but to me the guideline works and the only objections I ever see on this talkpage is I heart Icons this guideline is mean Gnevin (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, nobody is talking about "disbarring editors." We are talking about ethics. It's not a rule. It's advice. You obviously don't know the difference, which is why you treat this guide like a policy with your repeated use of the term "violation." This guide should also be seen as advice, not rules.
Second, the way you described the way wiki works is not always the best way. Even the founder and the paid wikipedia employees admit that it has it's problems. If my memory serves me correctly, a permanent paid staff member was hired by The Wikimedia Foundation specifically to address the very important problem of WP:BIAS. It's not necesarily true that those who are most willing to address the problem are the ones who understand it the most. In my professional communication design opinion, the ones who started this guide are biased against graphics and show no professional understanding of communication design and poor visual literacy. But I'm just one vote in the biased consensus that has shouted down my professional opinion. And before you invoke WP:EXPERT, I don't have time to teach everyone here everything they need to know to understand as much as they should to criticize graphics objectively.
Third, you and your biased anti-graphic advocates for this guide keep invoking WP:ILIKEIT as if it gives you permission to make a WP:DONTLIKEIT argument that is a stalemate at best. As some have mentioned here, it's not a stalemate if there is consensus on the article page. According to WP:CREEP, "editors involved at a policy page are not always an accurate sampling of the community at large—this is why instruction creep can persist. The lengthier and more complex instructions become, the harder it becomes to see if the community agrees with them, since fewer users will read and understand them." That means you shouldn't treat the guide as if it's some predetermined consensus that overrides article consensus. The consensus in this guide only applies to editing this guide, not other articles.
That's why I think generic images should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles. And there should be discussion about if the graphics have meaning. If a regular editor of that article can tell you specifically what a graphic means other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply. It's not a case of your word against theirs if you show your lack of visual literacy or play dumb by claiming "you don't see it." And if you "don't see meaning" of a graphic in an article you aren't a frequent editor of, that alone is not a reason to bring it up on the talk page of this guide. I suspect that's just your sneaky way of WP:CANVASSING to bring the dispute to the attention of your biased anti-graphic like-minded advocates of this guide to that article for a WP:POLL. It only should be mentioned on this talk page if it's a dispute with the guide. You should just move on and let the regular editors of that article or WP:Wikiproject decide if the claimed meaning of the graphics are valid or relevant. You can't prove that there's no meaning simply by making the argument from ignorance that "you don't see meaning" other than decoration or that you don't see additional meaning than what can be provided by text. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot -> Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)/rewrite Gnevin (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite process has already started. It's starts with discussion of principles on the talk page and consensus building. Just telling people to "shit or get off the pot" is doing neither. Either you have an opinion of what's been said or you don't. If you disagree with any points made thus far, I suggest you make the case as to why you disagree. If you agree with any points made thus far, I suggest you show your support by stating so. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
All I can see is you talking about me and repeating the same tired lines as before. Can you outline your principles in clear bullet points or better yet start editing the rewrite Gnevin (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
See new section below "Rewrite consideration." Oicumayberight (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Any talk of disallowing certain editors from any re-write should not be tolerated, particularly when that call is being made by someone who themselves have long fought for their own opposing views. Just stop it. -Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just stop it" yourself with the Straw man and red herring. Nobody is trying to force anyone or "disallow" anything. Learn the difference between suggestions and orders. The suggestion regarding ethics of the same people who edit this guide abstaining from "enforcing" were made by myself and Daicaregos. You can either take the suggestion or leave it. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's no red herring and certainly no straw man - you both said it (or "suggested" it) as shown above. I trust I don't need to quote you. it's not up to me to take it or leave it anymore than it is up to you. On the other hand, maybe you could both also offer to abstain in your "suggestion"? --Merbabu (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to your use of the word "disallow" as if some sort of forceful rule was being proposed. And do you have a problem with suggestions regarding ethics? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UT
OK, sounds good. You are not advocating anyone be prevented from contributing. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Considerations

  1. The goals of the guide should be stated clearly, objectively, and thoroughly.
  2. Subjectivity should be minimized throughout the guide.
  3. Anything that is subject to interpretation should be noted as subjective in the guide so that followers of the guide aren't tempted to treat their own personal taste and judgment as objective or factual.
  4. The wording of the guide should be unmistakeable as suggestions, not rules.
  5. Advice should be written in the guide that editors of the guide abstain from removing icons, but instead tag articles for review that aren't in keeping with the guide. This will show how well the guide actually guides without being forceful. And the wording of the tag shouldn't imply that it's already been determined that the tagged icons are not in keeping with the guide.
  6. If so much as one user can explain meaning of the images other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply. It should be considered subjective at that point and should be left up to the regular editors of that article or WP:Wikiproject to decide if the claimed meaning of the graphics are valid or relevant.
  7. Generic images should be handled with more care than flags, official logos, and crests. They most likely serve a purpose to illustrate or elude to the article topic and are less likely to be used for mere decoration. This is where the Guide is overreaching IMO, because any image can be considered an icon, even a photograph.
  8. It should be noted in the guide that text and images are not mutually exclusive. In fact, text and images often compliment each other and are not redundant. Having both can help make the meaning more universally understood despite language or cultural barriers.
  9. Suggestions should be made in the guide to add text to images that are unclear in meaning or relevancy to the article rather than removing them.
  10. A suggestion should be made to discuss only disputes with the guide on the guide talk page, not disputes with articles to avoid WP:CANVASSING.

Oicumayberight (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have one, very simple suggestion. Split this guideline. A guide on icons that applies to all icons except flags. And a second guide that specifically deals with flags. —WFC— 01:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in support of this idea. I think the flag guideline should never have been merged with the icon issues. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't see any need for a (presumably 100%) "re-write" as explained below:
  1. Agreed but what are the goals?
  2. Agreed. But who's the arbiter of subjectivity? No non-encyclopedic or decorative icons is pretty clear and objective.
  3. Disagree, unless it can be proven that other significant and important parts of the MOS are purely suggestive. However, maybe it could be considered if it is clearly acknowledged that it doesn't mean one now has free rein to add or keep icons.
  4. Disagree. That's just a recipe for argument and contradict point 2. It would be less weak an idea if it was clear that it applied equally to inclusion and exclusion of icons, but then what's the point of the guide. We are not about watering down the guide.
  5. No. Unworkable. And supports the uncontested addition of icons. And why is the idea only applying those who want to remove icons?
  6. No way. see above
  7. Possibly. Needs more consideration and explanation. What's a "generic image" as opposed to an "image"? Is it different to an icon?
  8. Only if it's very clear that this is images and not icons including flags, etc, etc.
  9. Indeed, images must be captioned. Icons should probably not be there.
  10. Not sure how this would work, but maybe.
--Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There are already two users that suggest a rewrite; three if you count the user suggesting the split. Even Gnevin appears to be open to it by his opening a sandbox page.
Here's my counterpoints to your counterpoints:
  1. The goal is to write the goals. And if we can't agree on the goals, then there's no consensus or justification for even having a guide.
  2. Consensus (in the article page) is the arbiter of subjectivity. And "no non-encyclopedic or decorative icons" is neither clear nor objective. WP:DONTLIKEIT#Just unencyclopedic is a circular argument. And "decorative" is not a reason to remove. "Exclusively decorative" is.
  3. It can be proven that other significant and important parts of the MOS are purely (not suggestive) subjective. Any part that is relative to the interpreter is subjective, even words like "small."
  4. How is point #4 a recipe for argument? What you consider an argument may be a necessary dispute. How does it contradict point 2? Nobody said that it couldn't be made clear that it applied equally to inclusion and exclusion of icons. The point of the guide is to guide editors to either better use of images or better reasons to remove them other than personal taste. Your statement that "we are not about watering down the guide" just shows the forceful manner in which you intend to use this "guide" instead of actually guiding editors to acceptable solutions. Treating a guide like a policy is a recipe for argument as we've seen in the history of this talk page.
  5. Don't just make opinionated statements that it's unworkable. Explain why it can't be done. And how would a tag for review supports the uncontested addition of icons? The idea doesn't have to only apply to those who want to remove icons either. It can also apply to those who wish to edit the icons, but I doubt any of them would also be editors of this guide. And if a tag is there, then the icons have already been included.
  6. Same as above. Explain why it can't or shouldn't be done. You are only showing anti-graphic bias when you don't.
  7. A generic image is a non-trademarked image that is not an official logo, flag, or crest, and not depicting a real person or official logo, flag, or crest. If you don't make special considerations for generic images, then any image on wikipedia could be considered an icon to dispute for removal regardless of size or meaning.
  8. The ambiguity is in the definition of "icon." That's why this whole attempt at this guide may be futile WP:CREEP beyond repair.
  9. Depends on #8
  10. It could be worded just as it's written in my original point #10.
Oicumayberight (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As a quick initial question, the notion of bias has come up a few times. Irrespective of who may or may not have an "anti-graphic bias" (as you refer to it), is this bias any less or more valid than the (apparent) corollary of a "pro-grahic bias"? --Merbabu (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Any bias would be irrelevant if the person making the case for inclusion or exclusion of graphics made objective arguments for inclusion or exclusion. I've only mentioned bias when there was no argument made or the arguments have been subjective. There's plenty of things I see on wikipedia that I don't like, but won't try to removed unless I have a good objective reason to do so. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
1. I'm not aware of any other MoS that states its goals, should a MoS even have a goal apart from offering guidance on it's subject matter. In my opinion no.
2. Agreed but hard to see it happening, WP:N and WP:RS are as subjective if not more
3. No other MoS does this and the subjectivity of a subject is it's self a matter of subjectivity
4. No other MoS does this clearly states this is a guideline. The wording of the guide should be unmistakeable as suggestions, not rules.
5. Nonsense
6. No. As is currently the case, user objects to a icon removal, a discussion is opened. NB the discussion like everyone discussion on wiki is open to whom ever wishes to get involved If so much as one user can explain meaning of the images other than decoration, then WP:ICONDECORATION does not apply.
7. Generic icon should be handled that same as other decoration . A photograph set at 20px is an icon .
8. Non iconic images not covered by the scope of this guideline. And having both can help make the meaning less universally understood because of language or cultural barriers.
9. Non iconic images not covered by the scope of this guideline . Icons don't have captions (generally but not a 100% rule)
10. No other MoS does this MOSICON is clearly a legitimate place to ask for questions just like I can ask WP:IMOS if I have an Irish question Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to make a general reply rather than reply point for point. Some of your points are just saying "no" without objective reasons, which again just shows bias. But you did make some objective points by comparing this guide to other guides. My counter-point is that this MoS guide isn't trying to accomplish the same thing as most other MoS guides. This MoS is taking on a bigger challenge; maybe too big. A MoS that governs the way typography or page layout is presented will not be as controversial as a MoS that governs the way images are presented. This is partly due to the fact that the wikipedia software itself forces consistency between typography usages and gives editors less options to be inconsistent. It's also due to editors being more concerned with choice of words than the font or style of the text. So editors will have an easier time conforming to a MoS that deals with typography and layout than they will have conforming to a MoS that deals with graphics.
As for the goals, less is needed to be said about the goal of style guides that govern typography and layout than guides that govern images because consistency is obviously the goal of a typography and layout MoS. There are many more parameters to graphics than there are for typography or layout. Color scheme, size, shape, effects, line thickness, genre, media type, orientation, rendering style, and the list goes on. I could probably list 100 parameters, but you get the point. The meaning of graphics can range from concrete diagrams to abstract symbolism with 100 points in-between. Trying to force consistency between the way graphics are presented is much more difficult, much more subjective, and should allow for much more flexibility by nature than text or layout. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've given objective reasons for all of the above. I disagree the challenge of this MoS is bigger than WP:N or WP:R or the {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} listed here . These guidelines are cornerstones of the projects. You give the example of typography which is not apt as you say the software looks after this , hense we've no MoS about the type of font, we do however have WP:MOSTEXT and 10 layout guidelines. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section has a very active talk page which would suggest people aren't having an easier time conforming to this subsection of the MoS.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that it's a different and more difficult challenge than the ones that deal with typography and page layout, especially with the lack of graphic design consideration that has gone into writing the guide so far. MOS guides about typography and page layout haven't generated as much controversy in the short amount of time as this has. Keep in mind that this MOS hasn't been around as long and effects far fewer pages than a MoS about typography and page layout. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Consistency is the goal of the MoS like all the MoS but we don't care about colour ,shape ,effects etc we care about where icons are used that is all. Why would a diagram be an icon it would be to small to see Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't where icons are used. The problem is in how you define icon. It's subjective. Any image can be considered an icon. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
We are talking about icon not diagrams. Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking diagrams. When I say graphic, I mean any image. Most of what you consider icons are illustrations. And it's subjective even if you specify the pixel size. Some images are easier to recognize at smaller pixel sizes than others. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So we do as we currently WP:BRD when it's debatable if its an icon or a small image, just as we do when a RS is debated or if something is Notable or what have you. We are just repeating old discussions , if you want a rewrite then start writing , have at it with a a sledge hammer and others will too. Scalpels will come later. I'm not going to keep repeating myself Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

[Outdent] Having a guideline about "images except flags" and another one about flags will just sow confusion and in-fighting. This started as just a flags thing, then broadened to cover flag-like things (heraldry, road signs, etc.) that were being used in articles, and so on, a bit at at time, until one day we got a pretty solid consensus rolling that the issue was flag or shields in particular, it was "decoration-itis" and cutesy or lazy attempts to replace readable text with pictures. The idea, expressed near the top of this sub-thread, that a flags guideline was merged with a decorative images one is nonsense. There were no two separate guidelines, or even proposals. I know; I wrote the first draft of this and was long involved in its evolution, though I've left it to others for a couple of years now. This guideline grew organically, with a ton of input by a lot of people, and very extensive discussions about pretty much everything it covers. So, consider this an oppose on the idea of splitting. I generally agree with Merbabu's numbered list of responses near the top of this sub-thread on what may or may not need addressing. When I periodically review this document I usually find something stupid in it, and a flamewar on the talk page about that stupid something. The stupidities are almost alway either due to someone who hates icons trying to ban them or at least advance a more and more anti-icon agenda, even when icons have in fact been found useful in some circumstances, or conversely due to someone who just totally loves icons all over the place and is very upset that they can't decorate the living crap out of every article with pointless widgets. This guideline, like all of them, has to strike a sane balance. And emphatically no, it is not always "objective". A large number, maybe even a strong preponderance, of style (and much other) advice and policy in Wikipedia is not objective at all, but consensus-subjective, being the collective majority view on what best serves the encyclopedia and its readers, generally at the expense of one or more other interests. We're all humans, with personalities. Virtually nothing about an endeavor like this can possibly be objective. What can be semi-objective - arbitrary, in the original legal sense, as in "arbitration", not the negative sense of the word - is review and considerations of the various views on this or that aspect of the broad question "what is best for Wikipedia". This guideline more than most has seen too-entrenched, vitriolic agenda-pushing and needs more consensus building. A POV fork into two guidelines, so that flag nuts (or flag haters for that matter) can disentangle their pet pseudo-issue from larger considerations, is the last thing we need here. And with that I'll probably not post here again for another year or two. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with the idea that this part of the MOS should be in two parts, but certainly not as a flags versus others split. I think that WP:Manual of Style (images) needs to address:
  • ”standard images”, typically located to the left or right of prose text and rendered with normal MediaWiki image syntax
  • image galleries, typically rendered with <gallery>…</gallery> but also within table cells when illustrating adjacent table cell data
  • images used to decorate infoboxes, such as photos, maps, flags and coats-of-arms, etc. This would not include icons used within infobox fields, but only images that occupy the width (or half-width) of the infobox, for example.
  • images used to decorate navboxes, such as with the image= parameter of {{navbox}}. Icons used within the navbox or on the title bar would not be applicable to this part of the MOS, but only to the icon part of the MOS.
I think that MOSICON has sometimes been used to justify changes for some of these image situations, and that might be the cause of some discontent with this guideline in its current form. I believe that WP:Manual of Style (icons) should truly limit itself to icons exclusively. The definition of an icon should be clarified; currently it is any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags, but perhaps a better definition would be any small images, approximately the size of plain text, and rendered adjacent to, or in place of plain text. I believe that an icon-specific guideline can be successful under that type of definition. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It does make more sense to address icons in a MoS on images and to be very specific about what is called an icon if a different set of guide lines are applied. So why did Gnevin nominate that MoS for deletion? Oicumayberight (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it makes no sense at all have icons in an MOS on images - unless of course you want to confuse things and make icons appear more legitimate because some might think they are images when their usage is as icons. Great, instead of whether they are decorative, we could argue over whether they are images or icons. However, I'm glad there appears to be some demarcation now between icons and images as opposed to a few comments above which tried to lump them together. And, an icon used as an icon is an icon. (PS - why is it still about Gnevin?) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is it still about Gnevin? Because Gnevin is still involved. Duh! He was the one who put the article up for deletion. And until you define icon in a way that is not subjective, there is no difference between icon and images. It says "any small images." Every image on wikipedia is small compared to the largest image on wikipedia. Small is a relative term, that is a fact. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious why WP:Manual of Style (images) is nominated for deletion, if you care to understand what is going on. In it's current form, all it does is transclude two other existing MOS pages, with little else to add:
For issues relating to image copyright, fair use, and what sorts of images are allowed on the projects, see the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]] and our [[Wikipedia:Picture tutorial|image and picture tutorial]].

There are sections related to images in other parts of the Manual:
* [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Images|general image style]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Images|image accessibility]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Images|page and image layout]]

As of 2010, there are not yet sections of the Manual devoted to audio, video, or other media (which are uploaded similarly and subject to similar copyright guidelines).  Two specialized parts of the manual, on image '''captions''' and '''icons''', are transcluded below.

= Captions =
{{:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions)}}

= Icons =
{{:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)}}
What I am suggesting is that we write an actual set of image guidelines, covering all the cases I outlined above. As for this page, I've already suggested an obvective definition of "icon": image that is approximately the size of plain text, and rendered adjacent to, or in place of plain text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you on both counts, if you want to edit MOSIMAGES I will withdrawn the AFD Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What's not obvious is why Gnevin or anyone who is interested in the quality of image usage on wikipedia wouldn't want to improve on a more thorough WP:Manual of Style (images) rather than just delete it in favor of a half ass WP:CREEPY attempt such as WP:Manual of Style (icons).
How about because I simply don't feel like writing an entire MoS. Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As for your definition of icons, I agree that it's more objective. There is no need to mention what the "image" consists of. I would make it even stricter by stating an icon is any image (including empty space in the image) that's less than the vertical size of 3 lines of text. But if it's only the size and placement of the image that we are concerned with, then it's a page layout issue and should be covered in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). Oicumayberight (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Decoration vs Distraction

In hindsight, I would have never gotten involved in this guide had Gnevin not cited this guide as an excuse to remove generic icons based on his own personal taste. But as some have correctly stated, this isn't about Gnevin. He has just been the best example I can think of for potential misuses of this guide so far.

I'm not beating a dead horse here, but it was obvious that Gnevin was dead wrong in citing this guide. The only thing he proved with his involvement in both of those articles is that photographs are preferable to renderings by consensus in wikipedia articles. And that was by accident. I think someone else actually suggested it at the time, while Gnevin disagreed. He even tried to remove the photographs and was voted down. Years later, in both of those articles, "small" images still remain, but are just less abstract. It was never a question of if the icons had meaning beyond decoration. It was a question of if meaning was made clear enough and if there were any possible images that could make the meaning clearer. This could have easily been handled case-by-case without citing the guide. And the guide did nothing to help the situation unless you count how the guide emboldened Gnevin to use it for the wrong reasons. But in the end, one might say that Gnevin removing the icons was the right thing done for the wrong reasons. Kind of like the corrupt cop who found illegal substance during an illegal search. Is that what we really want? If so, we should put a rule in the guide that says "remove any images that you personally don't like or don't understand how they help the article."

In Gnevins case, what he was complaining about is still not covered by this guide. He complained that the images were "childish," a matter of personal taste, but lacked the graphic design savvy to say what was childish about them. I knew from my professional graphic design experience that he didn't like the bright colors, the exaggerated features and the abstraction. He was basically complaining about the genre and the rendering style of the images. It's safe to say he was distracted by it. He didn't like it, and didn't have much trouble finding people who also didn't like it. What I've learned is that any rendering, regardless of genre is at risk of being considered "childish" compared to a photograph, in the same way that every kid thinks all cartoons are for kids regardless of what the cartoon is about. When it was made obvious that personal taste is not enough of a reason to remove something not liked on wikipedia, the argument shifted to that of meaning. Those who didn't get it (or were just playing dumb) outnumbered, but so what. If it was going to be a WP:POLL anyway, the reason doesn't matter. They didn't even have to play dumb. The majority was distracted by the fact that they didn't like the rendering style of the images regardless of size. But one thing was certain, the images were not exclusively decorative as proven by the longevity and the fact that the meaning of the images translated to dozens of languages that still use the same images.

What have I learned since? That decoration and distraction are two separate issues that should be handled differently. This guide is more objective for dealing with distraction. The issue of decoration is subjective. "Do not solely decorate" is really all that needs to be said about any article regarding decoration, regardless of size or content type. You don't even have to use images to decorate an article. You could even decorate using page layout and typography tricks aside from images, despite the restrictive software of wikipedia. The point is that decoration alone is not a problem unless it's distracting. Distraction is a little easier to prove than whether or not an image is purely decorative. To disprove that an image is purely decorative, all you have to do is find one user who finds relevant meaning in that image other than decoration. Conversely, to prove that an image is distracting, all you have to do is find one user that is distracted by it.

Now that we understand that Distracting is more objective than Decorative, what exactly is distracting? It actually has less to do with the content of the images or whether or not they mean anything. It has more to do with page layout issues like size, placement, and the number of images. That's where this guide (or even better, a guide on the broader subject of images, not just icons) can help objectively. Strict limits can be placed on the size, placement, and number of images. But no strict limits can be placed on the genre or rendering style of an image. And it's easier to speak to what is distracting than it is to speak to what has meaning.

What is at risk? The risk is that we go too far in the opposite direction by declaring war on distractions to the point that dull is the only acceptable remedy to distraction. That's why it's important that a guide actually guides, instead of enforces rules. Only enforcing rules is way too militant. If we want better quality, we need to guide editors to how to get better quality. We need to be constructive and solutions-oriented by finding better ways to help editors help wikipedia. My choice of images proved that graphics helped all the alternate language translators understand what the article was about. Wikipedia is the free international multilingual encyclopedia bridging the gaps between cultures. Some images are more universally understood than text. If a graphic seems irrelevant or meaningless, find ways to make it more relevant and meaningful. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

this isn't about Gnevin followed by 2 paragraphs about me . Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also is it fair to say you've no intention of being involved in a rewrite or improving this guideline but are in fact just here to rehash the same discussion that you've been rehashing for 2 years ever since the community decided to remove those icons you keep harping on a about? Gnevin (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually read it, or did you just count how many times your name was used. The fact is you and those articles are prime examples of where the guide has failed. But if I were just interested in smearing your name, I wouldn't even have to work hard at it. Your name comes up in most of the disputes over the guide. All I would have to do is take the side of the many users who have disputed with you in numerous other articles. But that's not the point of what I posted. You must have been too embarrassed by what you did to even see the points I was making about the guide itself and how to make it more objective and successful.
Yes I'm interested in a rewrite. Your failures and the failures of this guide to help editors like you and the editors which you oppose should be taken into consideration during the rewrite so the same mistakes aren't repeated. When you quit trying to bury the evidence and learn from your mistakes, you will see that. I've admitted what I've learned from the experience. It's time for you to do the same. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
[5] Gnevin (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you advising me to stop feeding you? I could have made the same points without even mentioning your name above, but everyone would have known who I was talking about. I can't help it that you've made yourself the best example of what's wrong with this guide.
I take it you are citing the essay on trolling because you either are admitting guilt, accusing me, or trying to divert attention from the valid points that I made regarding this guide above. I suspect it's all the above. Whatever the reason, this is not the forum to do any of the above. Are you ready to address any of those points? If not, what's your point that isn't ad hominem? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

How about a subsection under "2.1.1 Inappropriate use" that states: Flags should not be used on disambiguation pages, unless flags are the topic being disambiguated. --Bejnar (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular example that made you think of this. And wouldn't this already be covered by the guideline for disambiguation pages? (It already says that there should only be one link per item and that they are sentence fragments.) oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
For example, Zeorymer has twice placed a flag on the Corvo disambiguation page. Based upon comments on the user talk page, Zeorymer seems quite patriotic. I find that an explicit statement is better than an implied one. Neither Wikipedia:Disambiguation nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) mention the use of flag templates/icons. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images and templates, where images are discouraged. It does give exceptions to aid navigation, but the examples given are very weak. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The injunction could go either here or there, but I believe that it would be useful to place it one of the two places. --Bejnar (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's avoid calling them "injunctions"; these are guidelines, not laws. But that said, I think at the disbar MoS is better. It's a guideline specific to disambiguation pages, and should be at the page covering them. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree like WP:IMOS FLAGS should be handled by DAB mos Gnevin (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely invented "rule". It comes down to preference. Testament that a LOT of editors are content with flags next to countries on wikipedia is the fact that most countries use them and they appear across most articles form sport to disaster response. No, they may not add anything further to the article but neither do some other things we have in place... I personally think settlement infoboxes without a flag look somehow empty and not right... Its a matter of preference. I think there should be a system in which you can choose to hide all flags for those who dislike them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That fact is there are those who like flags and those that don't. That is not disputed and if it was a simple matter of taste then sure keep the flags, however this guideline and those removing point out lots of issues with using flags whereas those who want to keep them are struggling to find 2 Gnevin (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

State and provincial flags

W-League uses state and provincial flags for the various teams. I don't think that this is correct usage since the teams do not represent the state or province. They're not used in other North American leagues (Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League and others). Should they be removed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, they should be removed for the reasons you give above, as well as the fact that they just look awful in prose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree they should be removed and also the names should be expanded. Not everyone knows what CA etc is Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I tried to remove them on this article and a few others in November 2009, but was reverted soon afterwards by User:JonBroxton, so be prepared for a fight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ya, I've had a runin with that user on this topic as well.--JOJ Hutton 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sport pictograms (Olympic, Paralympic)

Maybe someone here could add to the discussion of sport pictograms at WikiProject Olympics? Bib (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of MOS

What is the purpose of editors attempting to write these guidelines when they are completely ignored on pages with the usual cry that it is only a guideline. The consensus reached on the numerous MOS all by different editors should carry some weight. Mo ainm~Talk 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When I come across this argument I just reply do you just ignore WP:N or WP:RS Gnevin (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There is little or no real comparison between WP:N and WP:RS, and a style issue such as the use or otherwise of a flag. WizOfOz (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
They are all stable guidelines and all have strong CON. Yes WP:N and WP:RS are more important in ensuring the accuracy of our information but they all can't be just ignored. Gnevin (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Gnevin. Reliable Sources and Notability are bedrock. But WP:IAR is for extraordinary cases only. If someone ignores any policy or guideline, they should be called on it. If they invoke the license granted by the ignore all rules guidance, they should be asked what about this particular situation justifies its invocation. David in DC (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That is my opinion too. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:British English#Flag

There's an interesting flag-related discussion here. --John (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of flags in 'International reaction' sections

Every accident/attack in Wikipedia seems to have an "International reaction" section, where various international worthies say "tut tut tut, what a shame", and every single line seems to get decorated with a flag (or several!). According to this, there are plenty of other people who think this is ridiculous -- is it time to add a note about this to the policy? First shot at wording:

The "International reaction" sections of articles, where countries and organizations issue official statements in response to events, should not decorate these statements with flags: they are distracting and do not help the reader find information faster, since each country is already listed in alphabetical order and issues precisely one statement.

Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These pages are a real mess. The flags are distracting and make it harder to read, the pages look horrible for them, and there is no on-topic benefit to having the flag there. If people want to know what a country’s flag looks like, they can click on that country’s article and go to it’s page. The lists in question are not about flags. These list of flags are the most basic example of “do not decorate”.
Your suggested wording would help a lot. Go for it I say.--Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Of course, it depends on what article you're talking about and the arrangement of the flags, but I think the use of flags in, say, the 2011 Iranian protests is useful to the section overall, just about as useful as the country names themselves. SilverserenC 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • @ Silver seren What do those flags add to that article? IMO they are purely being used as decoration which is against WP:ICONDECORATION, in this case it is not bad as the majority of the flags are identifiable but would the majority of people viewing the article immediately identify the Swedish, EU or even the UN icon if the name wasn't also there. The UN especially as it is not very identifiable at that size. Mo ainm~Talk 22:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Then, for unknown flags, that's why the names are also there. Both the flags and the names are informative for the section and the flags themselves allow quicker traversing through the sections to find the specific countries that you're looking for, rather than reading through a list of country names. SilverserenC 22:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • One problem with these "reaction" articles is that once some countries are flagged, there is an "urge" to flag every item, which leads to nonsense such as this edit, with flags for individual towns! It's also common to see editors trying to flag every organization, even using logos for the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc. just so that every item in these lists has a little icon. I also dispute the navigational argument for these lists (quicker traversing through the sections to find the specific countries that you're looking for) since countries are listed in alphabetical order, and only once per list. I believe flag icons are useful when they appear multiple times in a list or table, but not for individual instances that are already arranged by name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Okay, that is definitely a bit much and should not be allowed. But I don't see a problem with using them for overall countries and major non-governmental organizations (UN, EU), but anything more than that is too much. We should specify exactly where and how they should be used. Town flags should definitely not be used outside of the town articles themselves and, perhaps, the articles about the region or something to that effect. SilverserenC 23:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
            • The point being that no-one has established that the flags actually provide any benefit. Vague talk about scanning lists is not confirmation of any benefit. Yet, the disadvantages are significant – namely that many people, myself included, find them ugly and distracting. Further, they make wikipedia look amateurish. Of course, everyone knows that the vast majority of editors are amateurs, but the idea is that our product is not amateurish. I understand that a small number of people think they look cool or cute, and some of these are those who argue about scanning benefit. But if this benefit cannot be proven (let alone be self-evident), why do we need to put up with flags’ ugliness? --Merbabu (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

{outdent} The question is, what is wrong with the use of flag icons? The idea that it looks amateurish or unprofessional has been refuted. What else is wrong with them? If it is about things being too cluttered, that can be fixed fairly easily. As I showed before, the use of flag icons in 2011 Iranian protests is not cluttered at all. SilverserenC 17:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I support Jpatokal's proposal. The onus needs to be on those wishing to retain these decorations to demonstrate their utility, something I have never seen. --John (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    (ec) Why shouldn't the onus be on those wishing to remove these decorations to demonstrate why they are distracting? This whole debate screams of IDONTLIKEIT from both sides. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    That's a rather surprising question from an established editor. See WP:ONUS where it explains that those wishing to include or retain material have to demonstrate why, not those wishing to remove it. --John (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    ONUS doesn't apply here, since that relates to informational content, while the use of flags in these sections is more a question of formatting. I mean, if you're going to use ONUS, you're saying that we need to add references to every single flag we use. SilverserenC 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    I would happily argue that ONUS does apply here; if the flags carry no information (and I agree with you on this), what is the justification for retaining them? It should be clear that the spirit of this MoS rejects using icons for decoration. So either they carry information, in which case we need verifiability for what the information is, or they don't, in which case we can remove them. --John (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    It is a formatting question and I reiterate that we should have an RfC about it to properly determine consensus, as I don't believe that this particular use of flag icons has ever been properly discussed in relation to policy. SilverserenC 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    Doesn't that argument imply that the flags have no informational value in this case? Jpatokal (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    There can be informational value in a formatting arrangement and addition of certain information is still formatting. Not everything counts as content. ONUS really doesn't apply to flag icons, it applies to information that must be sourced. SilverserenC 23:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    There is no informational content provided by placing a flag next to a person or entity. It's a pretty/cutesy picture to some, and an eyesore to the rest. If you want to know about a flag, then go to the relevant flag article.--Merbabu (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this is a proposal that needs to have a formal Request for Comment, considering it is going to affect numerous articles across the entire mainspace and multiple Wikiprojects. SilverserenC 18:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure, why not. --John (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel these icon add nothing extra to the articles Gnevin (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to weigh in against this proposal as a general rule. There are a few separate issues here:

  • Implied meaning of the flags: This will depend on enforcing guidelines on their use, but in this context the flag indicates an official position or action by the state using the flag. As such, we should probably lean toward reactions that are significant to state policy receiving flags, and avoid them where the reactions are pro-forma. A paradigmatic example would be Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, if its consequences section reported the reactions of future participants in World War I in a list.
  • Flags as a navigational aide when dealing with text: I think "quicker traversing through the sections to find the specific countries that you're looking for" is self-evident to some (myself included) and dubious to others
This idea has been rejected if you can do so WP:PROVEIT Gnevin (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The clutter issue: I think this ultimately has nothing to do with the flags and everything to do with due weight (or equivalently WP:NOT#DIRECTORY point 8) in this kind of articles. Articles where flags represent clutter are articles that are lists of reactions without any consideration of the importance of the countries involved to the events. This is why 2011_Iranian_protests#International_reactions works. On the other hand, in International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution, we have totally non-notable responses (A press release from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that it is "permanently following the evolution of the events") and more than a half dozen reactions consisting of one line concerning evacuating nationals.
  • Clutter, part 2: Regional lists, alphabetized, are a particular bad solution to clutter because they treat the page like a directory, rather than highlighting the most important information. Often, the content itself would be much more useful: Condemning the Libyan government, Supporting the Libyan government for example. Also, on most issues, regions are unimportant beyond the immediate vecinity, and we could easily segregate many countries into Other reactions.

As an opponent of removing flags from all articles, I want to encourage a wider debate about making these articles useful.--Carwil (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more reasonable to respect the multiple editors who have directly reported their experiences of finding material more easily and quickly through using flag icons for indexing. However, there is a literature on design, readability, and perception that can be called upon to "prove it" if necessary.
Try these references for example: "Iconic representation reduces performance load…" with performance load defined as "the degree of mental and physical activity required to achieve a goal" (Lidwell, William (2010-01-01). Universal principles of design: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Rockport Publishers. ISBN 9781592535873. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), pages 132, 178). Eyeball monitoring studies of newspaper readers indicate that "readers do not really read but rather scan newspapers. At certain entry points they stop scanning and start reading the story that the entry point belongs too. … pictures are first seen then icons and graphics, followed by headlines and of different sizes and text." (Hyönä, Jukka (2003). The mind's eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Elsevier. p. 660. ISBN 9780444510204. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) In a slightly different context (drug labels on which detailed readability studies are performed to ensure patients are reading the material), "Instructions written in a list format, with pictographs, has been found to yield better performance than instructions written in a paragraph from." (Kumar, Shrawan (1998-03). Advances in occupational ergonomics and safety 2. IOS Press. ISBN 9789051993936. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), page 600.)
I think there's a pretty strong case that in pages like these, our goal should be to provide unobtrusive but visually clear entry points for readers interested in a particular country, or who are seeking to understand how a variety of countries fit into a particular issue.--Carwil (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
These references indicate that we see Icons quicker than text when used as "layout cues" but not when the reader must see the flag identify the flag and translate the flag Gnevin (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Readers must see the icon, identify the icon, and translate the icon, whether flag or not. In any case, your aggressive placement of the burden of proof seems unreasonable. It's also fairly unreasonable to demand studies specific to flags, when research on two quite different subjects with icons (newspaper parsing, and prescription drug instruction reading) coincides.
I think it would be healthiest to accept that some view flag icons as a distraction (as you and others have said from personal experience) and that others view flag icons as a navigational tool superior to alphabetical scanning (as I and others have said from personal experience), and seek to work together on defining where and how to use icons to avoid excessive visual junk and facilitate navigation and understanding.--Carwil (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, using flags as markers for a list of items is exactly what is meant by layout cues.--Carwil (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of the "layout cues" usage that why I highlighted it but I don't think layout cues applies in this case. I'm sorry if you've where put out but the claim has been made a number of times and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, so I asked for evidence. The burden of proof is always on the ones making the claims, I previously (a other discussion) linked to several articles which said icon aren't helpful, a study which focused on pictographic icons be it flags or others would be best.
The study on prescription compares paragraphs v lists , not relevant here in my opinion , the newspaper one is different it could be relevant but I feel it illustrates the usage of formatting (pictures, icons,fonts ,etc) as layout cues not as helping reading scan to get information quicker Gnevin (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Delay due to real world moving) Evidence: It seems reasonable to put forward meaningful reasons why these features are useful, but I think we should be cautious about dismissing multiple user experiences as "not evidence" when this isn't exactly the focus of studies. Rather than wait for the perfectly congruent study, it could be much easier to create alternate versions of a sample article in subpages and run an RfC based on them. Relevance of studies: The newspaper eyeball study is the clearest correspondence to the issue at hand. The prescription study seems to involve two issues, but one of them is pictographs/icons. As presently set up, most international reaction pages are functioning as directories, for which visual entry points (as suggested by the newspaper studies) could be useful. MOS for international reactions would be a bigger project, but do you think that my suggestions help reduce the level of visual clutter on such pages?--Carwil (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
and run an RfC based on them What would that indicate other which users prefer flags, we can't and shouldn't attempt to carry out are own research. The newspaper studies requires the reader to be able to identify sections based on formatting and images ,not identify concepts such as nations. The Visual entry point are served just as well by using bullet points or other formatting Gnevin (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
We're well off of a article space here, in a discussion on style rather than substance. Our obligations are to present data clearly and intelligibly and respect broader conventions used in writing. However, this conversation should not be policed by Wikipedia policies on content (like WP:OR), which are about writing an encyclopedia, not about what kind of information should inform the community decision about style. To quote Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia:
The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify for Wikipedia's administrative pages, or to phrase Wikipedia procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors.
Gnevin, you've put up many layers of defense against having a stylistic conversation about a matter of style, but I hope that now you realize I'm not "a dog," but someone with a serious commitment to making encyclopedic content readable, and therefore we can discuss style and aesthetics in an open way.--Carwil (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I always assume good faith. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We are having a stylistic discussion now so I don't understand how you can claim that we are not. "On the internet...." is just an expression and wasn't intended as an insult Gnevin (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

South African Flag

Can someone explain why the South African Flag 1928 - 1994 is referred to in this guide as "the pre-1994 apartheid flag of South Africa". This is not its description and the flag is not, or was not, an "apartheid" flag, whatever that might mean. WizOfOz (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think this is the correct page for this discussion try the page of the flag. Mo ainm~Talk 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that how it's referred to in this guide, so here is the right place. WizOfOz (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Better? Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Problem is apartheid didn't start until 1948 so that desciption is not accurate. I suggest perhaps "former South African flag" or "Flag of South Africa 1928 - 1994". The flag itself has nothing really to do with apartheid. WizOfOz (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD Gnevin (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will, but I thought these guides had to be edited only following agreement and discussion? WizOfOz (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No bold applies when ever and where ever ? Gnevin (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Usage of flags for sportspeople in individual sports?

I am wondering since most individual athletes competes in international competition should we put flags to emphasize what national team they play for in the infobox with terms to nationality. I think golf and tennis are two big culprits. This is because in tennis player compete in the Davis Cup (men) and Fed Cup (women), and the Olympics. So, what are your all's viewpoints on that subject? By the way, go look at WP:Tennis and see the debate on the projects talk page!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO in these sports they compete as individuals and not representing their countries so unless the article is in relation to their participation in an international event they should be removed, but having said that, flags are not to be used in infobox except in certain circumstances. Mo ainm~Talk 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point, but it is not correct in terms of competing in the Davis/Fed Cup, so for the country field in tennis bio infobox, you are correct. On the other hand, I think the infobox needs to have an additional field title national team, which would allow for the flag to be used. As an example, Andy Murray's country would be Scotland or Scottish, yet his national team would be Great Britain. I think this would be more apropos to avoid any confusion because a "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". On the subject of golf Lee Westwood's nationality is England, which is a constituent country, but he competes for Europe in the Ryder Cup. So, the England flag should be left off in the nationality section. The solution here would be to put two more entries in the golfer infobox, since Europe is his Ryder Cup participation, which golf will be an olympic sport. So, we would need to be putting in Olympic team that would require the England flag. I could go onto swimming and talk about this even more. I think flags in infoboxes for individuals as long as the section is titled effectively would be required and go along with the rules.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree the solution is to not have flags in the infobox as is stated in the MOS what you are proposing is adding more flags. Mo ainm~Talk 19:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I also disagree with the use of flags in this case per WP:WEIGHT. An individual tennis placer, auto racer, etc does not usually compete for their country ... they compete either individually, or as a part of a team that is not the national team. The use of the flag conveys allegiange that is not necessarily there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well then the rule must be changed or amended. Go look at Michael Phelps to see the radical overuse of flags as well and tell me if that is correct.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No the MOS is correct and was drafted by numerous editors who reached consensus but not all articles are compliant but I am trying to make articles compliant with the MOS. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So, is the Phelps artical correct or not?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
By the way his nationality is not USA it is American. I am an American not USA, which is also wrong across multiple project on athletes.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article as it stands is against the MOS namely, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Mo ainm~Talk 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss this in two places . Please return the discussion to WP:Tennis Gnevin (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of a series on x?

What is your opinion on the icons in the likes of Template:Baptist or Template:Feminism sidebar, personally I find the icons are selected at random, generally don't represent the series fully and in some cases at all and when I remove the icons the Part of a series on Baptists for example stands out so much more. Compare this to [6] Gnevin (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

They are decorative images, not "icons" as described by this MOS. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes

Are navboxes within the scope of this MOS? Such as [7] Gnevin (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that any image that isn't a photograph is an "icon" and must be removed. Not so; this page defines icons as: For the purposes of this guideline, icons are any small images... and these are not "small" images. There is nothing wrong with decorative images of this type in navboxes; indeed, horizontal navboxes that use the {{navbox}} metatemplate have a image= parameter to render decorative images. I claim that there is stronger consensus for navbox decorations that for this guideline, which was created to manage "small" icons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to think that any image that isn't a photograph is an "icon" and must be removed. Not so, icons have there place. While not small these are iconic images. We don't have a mosimages however I think the key point is Icons Images should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. Gnevin (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The comment that (images) should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder could also apply to photographs. It's silly to have a double standard for images, the difference being photograph or human-created. What you are implying is that WP:MOSIMAGE should address this issue, and I agree. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
While I am not someone to try and "pretty" up things much. The example you show above is how pretty much all infoboxes are done on fr.wikipedia and while I don't really edit there I do have to say their pages gain a little something I think by having them there. And in the way they are used I think they are more than aesthetics in that they very quickly show you the field the person in the bio is in. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Images)/draft have at it? Gnevin (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I had also started on a draft, but it's not ready to put on wiki yet. I think the current page is too flawed as a starting point, so I'd rather start with a clean sheet. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough Gnevin (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with DJSasso. Although if we're going to discuss aesthetics, looking at Alpine skiing at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill, I would much rather it was a horizontal navbox. As for that draft, I don't see why it's necessary. It would make far more sense to point out the double-standards between icons and other images at the main MOS page, and have the necessary amendments made there. Half of MOS:IMAGES is a how-to manual anyway, so there is probably scope to condense the section and increase its usefulness simultaneously. —WFC— 23:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere in the WP:WikiProject Olympics archives you'll find a discussion about the sidebar navbox design. The gist is that it is too awkward to quickly jump between event pages when you always have to scroll to the bottom first; we thought it would be easier if the navigation links were visible from the top of the page. But that was also before we started installing {{Infobox Olympic event}} on all these pages. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair points. I hardly ever edit Olympic articles, so I'll stay out of it after this post. But as an outside observer, perhaps it would be possible to merge all of those navboxes into the infobox, using the |games and |event parameters to determine what should be displayed? Admittedly it would be a fairly big job. But on the up side, you'd get rid of literally hundreds of templates, articles would (in my opinion) end up looking better, and it would drastically cut down on the amount of template work needed for future games. —WFC— 00:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons in infoboxes

Mjroots has suggested that there should be specific cases where flagicons are permissible in infoboxes: [8]
Now, I don't agree with the specifics, because the flag of registry has some potential to be misleading/distracting to readers - for instance, see MS Ulysses, a ship built in Finland, owned by an Irish business, sailing between Dublin and Holyhead, which has a little Cypriot flag in the infobox. However, in general I think it may be reasonable to include a national flag in an infobox if we're discussing something which is in some sense national. For instance, a Belgian flag in an infobox for a Belgian senator, Belgian navy vessel, Belgian government agency &c. We shouldn't put undue emphasis on nationality - and there are times when national labels will provoke disputes - but where those are not a problem, I think we should allow the use of national flags in infoboxes.
What does the community think? bobrayner (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your view and for the reasons you stated but if flags are to be used, what it represents must also be typed out.Curb Chain (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags in lists

Is it appropriate to use flags in lists about things which are not themselves "national"? For instance, in a list of places or people or events, is it appropriate to prefix each entry with a flag of the country where that place/person/event is? I have this in mind:

I started removing flags; mjroots reverted. Obviously that's just one article, but there are very many other lists which use flags this, so it probably deserves some broader discussion. Is it appropriate to use flags on lists like that? I feel that they're incompatible with WP:MOSICON as it stands (arguing that it puts needless emphasis on nationality), whilst mjroots says otherwise (arguing that the policy is more about BLPs). Of course, WP:MOSICON itself needn't be set in stone - maybe we could improve the rules, one way or another. What does everyone else think? bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is something that affects a large number of lists, and potentially thousands of individual articles on ships. I feel that a RFC on the issue may well be the best way to go. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want RfCs, I could go along with that. The two questions of flags are slightly separate issues. However (just to be awkward) the question of registry flags in ship infoboxes are quite a narrow area - running a separate RfC, and perhaps amending rules, just for one aspect of one wikiproject might be less appropriate than, say, trying to have a slightly broader discussion about flags-in-infoboxes generally. (Otherwise we'll just have another dispute next month about infobox flags for poets, or flags for mining companies, &c &c). Would a slightly broader discussion be OK with you? If so, we'd have RfCs on:
  • Flags for each entry in a list (with emphasis on lists of things which are not particularly national; I have no objection to flags in lists of countries, governments, ambassadors &c).
  • Flags in infoboxes; a ship's country-of-registry is a good example to mention, and we'd like clarity on that point, but there are all kinds of other cases.
Does that sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, two separate RFCs, one of the use of flags in lists, and a separate one on the use of flags in infoboxes. There are areas where the use of flags in infoboxes are appropriate, including ship infoboxs, battle infoboxes, and some sports-related infoboxes. Equally, there are occasions where the use of a flag in an infobox is inappropriate, as stated under MOSFLAG. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added two RFCs at the top of this talk page. We need to wait for the bot now. Once the bot has done its work, the RFCs should be listed at WP:CENT to ensure as wide an audience as possible. Relevant WPs should also be informed. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad call IMO. Any flag RfC is going to be attritional, and two simultaneous flag RfCs is likely to detract from both. I would therefore suggest going ahead with the infobox one (which appears inevitable), but postponing the list one. While the infobox one is going on, there would be plenty of time to gauge whether the issue with lists is down to a few editors' personal tastes being different, or whether a lot of people think the status quo is wrong. —WFC— 15:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The lists issue is basically a yes or no issue, and thus should be fairly easy to settle. It will cover lists where multiple countries are involved. I would not support the use of, for example, county flags in a list where all entries are from the United Kingdom. The infobox issue is not so clear cut, but is an "allowable in these circumstances" issue. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, the bot listed one of them, and part-listed the other, which I've now fixed. I'm going to link each RFC to a separate sub-page to keep them separate from each other. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate because that unduly weighs on the flags and thus, by extention, polity. Flags are incompatible with WP:MOSICON because it DOES put needless emphasis on polity. This guideline is not more about blps; this is not mentioned anywhere on the page.Curb Chain (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice this last night, I've no idea what is being asked as the RFC's weren't opened correctly . Is this about ,lists or infoboxes? Gnevin (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's about both, but this section doesn't seem to be the actual rfcs: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in lists‎Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes‎

RFC

This is a request for comment of the use of flag icons in lists related by a subject, such as List of rail accidents (2000-2009), and whether or not WP:MOSFLAG needs to be amended to take into account the use of such flag icons in lists should consensus be that they should be used. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No the MOS doesn't need to be amended as it supports the flag usage as is Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox. This should only be done if the icon has been used previously with an explanation of its purpose. Gnevin (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My answer comes as the result of this thought experiment. Look at this United States and this  United States. Does the latter convey ANY information relevant to rail accidents that the former does not? My conclusion is "no". And so my comment in response to the query posed by this RfC is, similarly, no. David in DC (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment There are two RFCs running on the uses of flags. I did follow the instructions and list the RFC at the top of the page, yet someone has chosen to move them both, and omit the rationale for one of the two RFCs. I can't be bothered to go through the history, or restore the missing rationale this late at night.
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes for the other RFC. Mjroots (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is supposed to be at the top of the talk page SECTION. Here are the links. I suggest you close this section and make these 2 links like a map so people can click on it and peruse the links.Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in lists‎Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes‎Curb Chain (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
These links are incorrect as well , I suggest closing them and opening a proper discussion Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The trouble with these RFC is they are using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. For ships are we talking about flags such as Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov ? Gnevin (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I express no opinion on that. In my view, the real problem with these RfC's is that someone decided to clog up a page that marginally interested people have good reason to watch, by moving them from sub pages to here. —WFC— 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
RFC don't go on subpages and what difference does it make what page your watching, this page is hardly a hive of activity ? Gnevin (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags - Policy discussion

Initial discussion

A discussion on the future of flag icons is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#MOS:FLAG I fear changes could be decided by only a small group of editors, so am making people aware here doktorb wordsdeeds 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on that conversation, and this one, and after reviewing these pages: List of the oldest verified people, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, List of oldest people in the world, List of oldest people by year of birth, List of oldest people by nation, List of oldest living people by nation, List of people with the longest marriages, List of oldest twins, List of oldest dogs, List of verified supercentenarians who died before 1980, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1980s, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s, List of Japanese supercentenarians (flags by Japanese prefecture), List of Swiss supercentenarians (flags by Swiss canton), I propose the following change to WP:FLAGBIO:
"Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence or death
Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc., and many people emigrate, without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality."


The limitation to infoboxes and the ledes of articles, and the exclusion of place of residence, has led to pages like the longevity-related pages I've cited above. Please look through them and see if you think they should stand. The flags tell the reader nothing that the text nameplace does not already convey, the reasoning of the current WP:FLAGBIO is directly on point in regard to these lists, the icons make the pages slow to load, the flags are used in neither a restrained or sensible manner, they are no kind of navigation tool and they are, to my eye, and the eyes of other editors, visually distracting.
Review and consideration by previously uninvolved editors who deal regularly with matters of style would be a great help here. David in DC (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I support the proposed change. It should have been obvious that flags for place of residence are just as misleading as flags for places of birth/death, but it seems that plenty of articles have squeezed round FLAGBIO and used flags for place of residence. This will close that loophole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Bretonbanquet. --John (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - it's much clearer and more definitive. --Merbabu (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Aye aye! Jpatokal (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Although I thought it was fairly obvious already, but if there needs to be additional information in this guideline to helpconvey that, then go ahead.--JOJ Hutton 02:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support For me, the "flags are visually appealing" rationale just did not feel like it would meet the necessity of having flags in lists. Then, someone expressed a concern about the ability to visually identify a country (if not through a flag, then what?), i.e. if there are 3 people residing in France on a particular list, how do we quickly note those people together? I think someone here mentioned sortable tables, and that caught my eye as a good solution to that concern. Regards, CalvinTy 14:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposed change doesn't change the spirit of the existing guideline, basically the change amounts to wordsmithing for clarity, and that's a good thing. Per WP:SERIAL I would like to see a comma after "residence" in "residence or death". ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've incorporated the comma. David in DC (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion collapsed, started by editor banned by ArbCom from commenting on this topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. The above proposed change represents a wiki-lawyered attempt to influence a third-party discussion.

I'm going to say this: not only is the proposed change wrong, but the current "guideline" is wrong: it uses exceptions to the rule (Bruce Willis born in Germany) to justify the rule...that's illogical. What really should be the guideline is that flag icon use for birth, death, and residence should be acceptable if the use is for purposes of identification, the identification has been confirmed by an outside source, and the nature of the flag icon use is not "jingoistic" in nature.

For some, flags might be nationalistic in nature, but for others they are a statistic. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wimbledon_singles_finalists_during_the_open_era

The point for some is that this list represents the most-dominant tennis nations when it comes to wins. One might say the flag icon is not needed there, since we already know the name of the nation.

But what if we wanted to see how relative dominance was spread out over time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

The flag icon in graphic, table, or list format is often useful as an identifier of similarities that is more than just "aesthetically pleasing" but is actually a tool of visual-spatial reasoning: one can surmise a lone flag icon by itself represents a self-made individual or a fluke win, while many flags represent the dominance of that particular power (even if just one player, such as Federer for Switzerland).

For some reason, those persons that use only half their brain (the right half) get upset with material that is graphically stimulatory to the left side (the visual-spatial and creative matrix). Thus the attempt to stifle what really doesn't need stifling.

Of course, one could just rename "current residence" to "nationality"...if we have a list of Nobel Peace prize winners, are we saying it's not OK to list Obama with an American flag, lest someone erroneously "assume" he is an American?Ryoung122 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: From where I sit, what you're arguing for - reversal of the MOS intent to endorse the use of flags in infoboxes - is way bigger than the minor change for a little more clarity on the existing intent being proposed here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. cheers--Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment You may have noticed that the list of examples I've provided are all longevity-related articles. It's important for editors to know about this, in connection with RY's contribution to this discussion. I think they may be in violation of his topic ban. I suppose it hangs on how broadly "broadly interpreted" is interpreted.David in DC (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a violation of the topic ban by any interpretation. The connection between this discussion and the longevity articles was made very clear at the top. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I followed the discussion about the use of flag icons in the longevity articles during the last days and thought about the problem. The following sentences are my solution after reading all these arguments (I'm no native english speaker so don't wonder if a sentence is not clear enough. Please ask if you want to, I'll try to make them clearer then):

Of course, rules should be accepted, but rules shouldn't be observed only because they exist. Every rule has a purpose why they exist, so what are the purposes of the rules forbidding the use of flags in the english wikipedia?

As far as I see, there are mainly two ones: Firstly, it should be easy to use the articles, but the exaggerated use of flags can easily prevent this. Secondly, the use of flags could pretend that a person belongs to a nationality, although the person does not in reality.

Let's investigate the first purpose: Does the intensive use of flags complicate use of the longevity articles? I think we can say: No. If you look at the oldest variants of the article „List of living supercentarians“, you can see that only the country of residence was given without any flag. In later times the flags were added, and these variants prevailed which wouldn't have been if they wouldn't make the article's use easier. So why is it easier to read the article by using the flags? At first, the corresponding rule says that flags shouldn't be used neither in a continuous text nor an infobox. This rule was observed: There are no flags in the continuous texts, and the lists are no additional infoboxes giving additinal information. It's really on the contrary: The lists are the main informations of the whole article. And so the really question we have to ask is: Does the use of the flags make it easier to use these lists, as in this case this is synonymous with „Does the use of flags make it easier to use the article?“. To get a solution, you only have to compare variants of the lists with and without flags. What do we see? If there are flags we can see in the very first moment that most of the people live in the USA or Japan. We also can easily see those countries where only a few supercentanarians live, like Barbados, Portugal, or Germany. But if we try the same thing with those lists without flags, we see – nothing. United States, Japan, Barbados, it's hard to get an overall view. You have to look at every single line to find out anything. The reason is that you can use the flags mainly as a guide to see which ones appear often and which ones rarely. You doesn't even have to no which country is meant in the first moment. You can always read it in the very next moment as it is written next to it.

Now, let's investigate the second purpose: Does the use of flags pretend a wrong nationality. At first, I have to say: „Yes, it can.“ But, on the other hand, I wonder: Does the use of the flag pretend more than the country's name itself? It was claimed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#MOS:FLAG) that  United States would say nothing more than only United States. That seems to be right, but we have to ask it the contrary way, too: Does United States says anything less than  United States? Or, as an actual example: It was asked if people from Puerto Rico should counted as people from the USA. So, is there any difference if we use flags or not? Is the difference between „Emiliano Mercado del Toro, Puerto Rico“ or „Emiliano Mercado del Toro, United States“ really less than between „Emiliano Mercado del Toro,  Puerto Rico" and „Emiliano Mercado del Toro,  United States“? I think no. (And it's the same with Wales and the UK: For me there seems to be no difference between  Wales and  United Kingdom at the one side and Wales and United Kingdom at the other one.) What does this mean? For me, it seems that the really problem in these cases is not the use of flags, it's the use of state's names theirself, as there choice pretend nationality by theirself. Of course, we could solve the problem by writing the names of landcapes instead of countries, but does everyone of us know where Osterland, Weserbergland, or the Taunus are located? And what should we do with regions like Friesland, a word which can mean a landscape, but a part of it can also mean an administrative part of the Netherlands.

So I would like to suggest this: We don't remove the flag icons as they make it easier the use the article and removing them would be against the rules's first purpose. But, to solve the nationality's problem, in the introduction text of every longevity-list-page we add some sentences like these ones: „The informations in the columbs about the people's place of birth and place of death do not say anything about a person's nationality. They only show the historical/actual official country/region in which the place is where he or she was born or lives.“

I hope you understood what I mean and can support my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.236.149 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 April 2011

  • Comment Just regarding the second point, i.e. the flag of the country being no more suggestive of nationality than the name of the country alone, I disagree entirely. A flag is clearly a symbol of a nation's identity, and it is used extremely widely to represent a person's nationality, in sport for example. It is too often associated with nationality not to be misleading when used for other purposes. Without the flag, the table simply gives the information: "Country of residence - United States". A flag has no informational purpose whatsoever in this case as the subjects are not representing these countries in any way, and thus can only be misleading. With regard to the first point about flags making it easier for the reader to absorb the information, that seems to be a matter of opinion. Some say they help, others say they distract. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The only objection raised (by an unsigned editor) has been responded to. Given that this thread started out about flags on longevity articles, the other object needs no response, at least not substantive. Arbitration enforcement might be an appropriate response, but not response on the merits. I think I see consensus building. Does anyone think otherwise? David in DC (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@David in DC, since you made the proposal on 7 April 2011, I would say that tomorrow, 14 April 2011 (a full week), if there is no more opposition, then that would be consensus & the WP:FLAGBIO policy can be boldly edited and be done with it. I may sound itchy but I just want this to be tied up. Regards, CalvinTy 11:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. But, I'm concerned that, despite my posting a note that I'd made a proposal here at both the oldest people talk page and the village pump threads about this, no one who participated there, in opposition, has posted here at all. Unless the one eligible objector here did so as an unsigned IP. Does anyone think a note needs to be posted there again? If so, please do. Both threads are linked up above. If not, I agree that we should conclude that there's consensus and change the guideline. That wouldn't be bold, it'd be SOP. What will take boldness will be trying to implement the new guideline, at least in longevity. David in DC (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm going forward. David in DC (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started small, with List of oldest twins. Would everyone please make it one of your "watched" pages and see what happens. WP:CRYSTAL, but I fear implementation will be difficult. David in DC (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've also removed the flags from List of oldest living people by nation. David in DC (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also List of Norwegian supercentenarians David in DC (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per reasoning in above supports, can't add much to what has already been said. Mo ainm~Talk 13:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional discussion re "Except in tables"

  • Support I basically agree, but I propose to add the following precision
    Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death (except in tables)
    Not doing this would made tables much less clear. I'm especially thinking of sports: team rosters, winners of tennis tournaments, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.89.198 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with permittng flags in tables. Please review the lists listed at the top of this thread. In some, The World's Oldest People WikiProject has started the process of clearing out the flags on the tables. On others we haven't completed the task and on some we haven't started. Find one where we haven't started and one where the work is complete. Decide for yourself whether the flags on the unstarted ones convey ANY information. David in DC (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's one that's still got flags.List of oldest people in the world. Here's one with flags and overlinks have been fixed List of living supercentenarians.David in DC (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I saw that you triggered extensive discussions about flags in longevity-related topic. I don't want to interfere into this as I don't really care about 110+ people. But how can you coherently remove all flags from longevity topics without touching sports related tables. And this, I would hate to see this. I'd still go for my precision (except in tables) ( what about (except in non-longevity related tables)? Just kidding ;)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.89.198 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose The proposed change excludes the relatively common instance of flag icons to indicate sporting nationality. There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Olympic, tennis, golf, etc. articles that use flag icons, justified by their frequent usage for the same purpose in other media such as television and web content. I propose something like the following: In most situations, flag icons should not be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Flag icons may only be used to represent nationality when the person is closely associated with their nationality, and that association is widely supported by reliable sources. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply The current language covers your situation without amendment. It only applies to flags used to identify place of birth, residence, or death. It does not prohibit the use of flags to identify the country under whose banner an athlete competes. The current language is specifically tailored so as not to affect articles about competitions like war or athletics. If Alexander Ovechkin competes in the Olympics for a Russian team, nothing in the current language here prohibits a Russian flag in an article that deals with that competition. But if he lives to be 100, there'll be no flag on lists of living centenarians for where he resides, and if he dies at 111, there'll be no flag for where he died on lists of supercentenarians.
As to "...how can you coherently remove all flags from longevity topics without touching sports related tables." I think it will be easy. Longevity-related topics are all listed in this template: {{Longevity}}. The only obvious overlap is here And even with this one, any of these centenarians who have their own article, or who competed on a notable team, can have a flag on the pages related to that activity. It would represent what country they competed for. But not their place of birth, residence, or death. I'm agnostic about flags indicating "sporting nationality" and will leave that discussion to folks who know more about notability in competition. The same goes for warriors. In an article about wars, flags might well be important. All WP:FLAGBIO is aimed at is birthplace, place of residence and situs mortis.
I hope that helps. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There are many instances where athletes do not directly compete for their nation (e.g. tennis and golf), yet external media (which are also reliable sources) frequently use flag icons based on their birthplace. The current language would exclude similar usage on Wikipedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's ok if our style manual differs from The New York Times style manual or the AP guidebook, or Kate Turabian's or whatever. Here, our Manual of Style does. David in DC (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. I'm saying that the current suggested wording (Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality) would exclude flag template usage from tens of thousands of articles for which it should be permissible. Here's a tangible example: Rory McIlroy doesn't compete directly for Northern Ireland, yet both the Wikipedia page for the 2011 Masters and at least one external source put a flag icon next to his name, solely justified because he was born in Northern Ireland. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Flags in sporting articles are used to indicate that the person is representing that nation, not birth/residence/death. If golfers are not, in fact, representing their nations, then the flags should be removed. Jpatokal (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If reliable sources use flag icons in this way, why should Wikipedia be different? And how would any average reader who stumbled upon one of our sports pages crack the unwritten code that "flags in sporting articles are used to indicate that the person is representing that nation, not birth/residence/death"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not ESPN. And there are plenty of athletes like Said Saif Asaad (an ex-Bulgarian Qatari) who represent countries that they were not born in, which is why his infobox is careful to state that he is a "Competitor for Qatar", not simply "Qatari". Jpatokal (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Andrwsc here. Guidelines (MOS) are supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. If there are tens of tousands of articles on the wiki that use flags to deliniate sporting nationality then our MOS has to reflect that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
So we formalise the stupidity of sport articles across the rest of wikipedia? No thanks. I don't understand why cutesy flags are needed in sports articles anymore than other articles. --Merbabu (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Merbabu don't see why sports articles need flags more than any other article. Mo ainm~Talk 12:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Flags aren't strictly needed anywhere, but clearly a large number of editors prefer them in certain contexts, such as sports articles. Obviously, flags are a big part of many international competitions in real life, so it's not unexpected for that presentation style to spill over to Wikipedia. Flag icons on web page tables weren't invented here! I agree that this style has been taken to inappropriate instances, which is where the MOS should come in. But to prescribe removal altogether is a knee-jerk reaction that does not reflect the very long-standing consensus here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is just me but the vast majority of flags used are purely decorative and I'm open to correction but can't see what they add to articles when the country name is beside were the flag is. Mo ainm~Talk 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think flag icons make perfect sense in sports events where competitors are directly representing countries, and do not fall under the "birth/residence/death" exclusion. Jpatokal (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Proposal The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think it's a bad idea to remove flags from tables. Flags in tables are very widely used, and not only in sports e.g. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Golden_Bear, Fields_medal to indicate where the person comes from. While I fully agree that flags are not suited in text or infoboxes, I think they're really a big plus for the clarity of tables. So my proposal is :

    Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death (except in tables)

    Do we agree on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.89.198 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No, we do not agree on this. I guess I'll invoke that old chestnut "!voting is evil". If persuasive arguments are made that affirmatively change consensus, so be it. I don't see anything like a new consensus here. Please recall that we are only talking about WP:FLAGBIO, and still further only about flags to indicate place of birth, residence or death. Flags in lists of nations are not affected. Only flags that tend to emphasize (or mislead) about a person's citizenship. I must say, the attachment to an icon of Old Glory rather than the simple words United States perplexes me, but we need not decide that here.
In connection with people, flag icons either
(A) convey no useful information that words alone do not convey, or
(B) confuse residence, birthplace or deathplace with citizenship. David in DC (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is too philosophical for me. But as far as you only state to indicate place of birth, residence or death and not citizenship I can agree with you. Most tables should remain unchanged, which is what I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.89.198 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't make any difference if the place of birth, residence, or death is in a table or not. The implication is still the same, and the reasoning behind the current wording remains unchanged. The tables in all the longevity articles are widely considered inappropriate for flag icons, and this proposal would re-introduce a problem that the current wording recently eliminated. This is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, so one must use common sense on a case-by-case basis to determine whether flags are appropriate or not. The fact remains that using a flag to indicate place of birth, residence, or death implies a citizenship or affiliation, and that is inappropriate whether the flag is inside or outside a table. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but it may be useful to add some such sentence as Flags may be used to indicate citizenship or membership in a national sports team, since nobody seems to be actually objecting to that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment The proposed language Flags may be used to indicate citizenship or membership in a national sports team may or may not be a good idea. I take no position. But this thread is about whether to amend WP:FLAGBIO to permit flag icons in any or all lists. In other words, your support does not seem to be for the proposal that starts this thread. To clarify, do you mean to support adding "except in lists" or do you mean to propose an entirely different addition, to make clear that, while flags cannot be used to indicate places of birth, residence or death, they can be used to indicate what some have called "sporting nationality"? If it's the latter, I'd urge you to strike your contribution to this particular thread, and make the proposal in a new thread or in the thread about "sporting nationality." Having it here, it looks like you support a blanket exception to the "no flag icons" rule for all lists, rather than a more limited exception that permits flag icons in articles (or lists or info boxes) related to sporting competitions. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm a little late to this discussion and only noticed it when I saw that an editor had made a change to Women's World Golf Rankings. I think there is some confusion about how golfers and other athletes do and do not "directly compete for their nation." I hope I can clarify this. Every professional golfer potentially is competing for his or her nation. By this I mean that even though in many individual tournaments, players are not organized by nationality or pitted against each other based on their nationality, nationality counts. Why is this? It's because there are several very significant international team competitions every year that are competitions between citizens of (or residents, or those born in ... the rules vary depending on the competition) particular countries. These competitions include the Ryder Cup, the Solheim Cup, the Presidents Cup, and the Curtis Cup to name a few. In addition, for in 2016 golf will returning to the Olympics. In all of these cases, knowing who the best golfers are from each country is absolutely essential and very important. Finally, a sufficient argument for including nationality when listing the golfers is that the Official World Golf Rankings and Women's World Rankings include nationality. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and should report the essential facts. Apparently according to the governing bodies of golf, nationality is important. --Crunch (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Test case

Template_talk:Infobox_ship_begin/doc#Change_to_comply_with_WP:WORDPRECEDENT Gnevin (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the use of flagicons in lists

Basis under which this RFC was filed

This is a request for comment of the use of flag icons in lists related by a subject, such as List of rail accidents (2000-2009), and whether or not WP:MOSFLAG needs to be amended to take into account the use of such flag icons in lists should consensus be that they should be used. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue

There are many lists that cover worldwide events, each list having a particular linking criteria. In many of these lists, flagicons are used to indicate the country relevant to the item. Examples of such lists include (but are not limited to) lists of ship commissionings, decommissionings, launches and wrecks, aircraft and railway accidents. Individual examples of such lists are:-

The incident that led to this RFC being raised was the removal of flagicons from the List of rail accidents (2000-2009), with a claim that it was against WP:MOSFLAG to have them. My reading of MOSFLAG is that it is largely aimed at biographical articles, and does not touch on such useage in lists. The aim of this RFC is to establish whether or not there is a consensus for the use of flagicons in lists such as these, and if so, where to draw the line. Whilst this RFC is open, flagicons are not to be removed from, or added to, existing lists. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside: I'm mostly concerned about non-national items. With lists of countries, of national sports teams, of governments &c, the addition of flag icons to emphasise nationality is less controversial; my concern is about adding national flags on lists of things which are not particularly national - a rail accident, a shipwreck, a person, &c. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this view, but I do not agree with adding flags without stating what the flag represents, for example, when using the flag of Ivory Coast instead of writing Ivory Coast because not everyone can recognize the flag of Ivory Coast and it is identical to the Irish flag except for proportions and orientation.Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean using {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}}. That isn't a great problem, but what about  United Kingdom, which from 1801 to 1923 was  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Should we use that, or the use {{flagcountry}}, which produces  United Kingdom? (click on link to see why) Mjroots (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So if there is a problem with the templates, then that has to befixed. But if we are trying to represent the polity, the political aspect of the subject, then we should type out what we are trying to say. More likely than not, the flag will be associated somewhere later-in-the-line which is not as important as typing out the term we are trying to express.Curb Chain (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Curb Chain. I also have no idea whatsoever who would care whether you use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom or UK, as long as they understand what you mean. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The point of using {{flagcountry}} instead of {{flag}} is to enable one to link to the correct article when discussing a period in history. The United Kingdom of 1914 is not the same as the United Kingdom of today. Other countries are also covered by flagcountry. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of using flags in the named lists. In List of deep-water ports the name of the country is given in the list. I am unclear of the value of adding a flag. In List of rail accidents (2000–2009) I am finding the use of the flags quite distracting and puzzling. I may not be the only one coming to this RfC who doesn't quite understand the purpose of the flag icons in those examples, it may be helpful to give a rationale for their use. We have a link to WP:MOSFLAG which advises when flag icons are inappropriate - is there a guide to when flag icons are appropriate? I am thinking that in lists or tables for certain topics which focus on countries such as the Olympic Games, having a flag icon would be a useful shortcut to giving the country name. SilkTork *Tea time 10:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have always used flags in lists, and never found them any distraction or problem. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 23:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But then of course they are in lists of operators of aircraft, not the way flags are used in the four examples listed above. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Publicity

This RFC has been listed at WP:CENT, and WT:AVIATION, WT:MILHIST, WT:SHIPS, WT:TWP and WT:UKRail have been informed. If any editor knows of other Wikiprojects affected by this discussion, please publicise this RFC and note here which Wikiproject has been notified. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Have notified WP:FLC. —WFC— 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Plus WT:MOS. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
WT:FOOTY informed. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts.Curb Chain (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOTOR and WP:F1 have been notified. DH85868993 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've considered notifying wikiproject economics and wikiproject international relations, considering BRICS and BRIC falls under their scope for both lists and infoboxes. I have not done so though.Curb Chain (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's something that cuts across almost all subjects; practically every wikiproject will have some articles which use flagicons. It may be inappropriate to spam every wikiproject about this - better, I think, to announce the RfC in more centralised locations. bobrayner (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It's listed at WP:CENT, so I'd say that we don't need to notify any more WPs now. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd think WP:WPFT should be explicitly notified. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Notified.Curb Chain (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by Mjroots

That the use of flagicons in lists covering worldwide or continent-wide topics is appropriate. No country sub-division flagicons should be used in lists that are country specific, such as List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose First Sentence b/c: Not everyone can recognize immediately the polity being represented by a flag.Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that not everyone would instantly recognise a country by the flag displayed. However, clicking on that flag leads to the article on the country in question. Thus leading the reader to learn something they were not expecting to learn. How may of these flags do you know? Malta, The Bahamas, Singapore, Greenland, Japan, Bangladesh, Austria-Hungary, Liberia - or have you just learnt something you weren't expecting to know?
wp:accessiblity states that visual cues should not be be the only way used to convey information. For example, if we had a reader who was blind, and was using a screen reader or listening to one of our spoken articles, how sould s/he be able to know what the flag represented? What happens if s/he does not have a mouse? What happens if someone is in a hurry (and that is one purpose of an infobox) and wants to read information quickly? It is fine including a flag, whatever is being represented should be typed out as well. For example, if you are representing Nazi Germany with its flag, you should either append "Nazi Germany" or "Germany" whatever is decided.Curb Chain (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen people use this accessibility argument before, and it always bothers me. The accessibility policy is about adding ways to make things accessible to people who have problems consuming our content "normally" (blind users being the primary example). It is most certainly not about preventing "normal" content from being used in article space. Personally I discount the entire line of reasoning that "we shouldn't do this at all because of accessibility concerns", and it seems to me that most other people do as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Recall some of the web's most influential readers are blind: search bots. Where there is no particularly strong reason to only represent information visually, content should be provided with text as well. isaacl (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Second Sentence b/c: point of view issuesCurb Chain (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that sub-country flagcions should be used in lists? The second sentence is specifically aimed at avoiding this. Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that "sub-country" flagicons should be used in lists if there is a niche that needs to be "filled".Curb Chain (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Down this path lies madness. If a Scandinavian Airlines plane has an accident while flying over Malaysia on its way between Bangkok and Singapore, does it get Sweden Norway Denmark Thailand Malaysia Singapore? What if the pilot is a Somalia Finland dual national, the plane was built by Airbus SAS of France, and it's hijacked by a Japanese Red Army terrorist demanding a diversion to the Maldives unless State of Palestineian prisoners are released from Israeli jails? Jpatokal (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that example. I'm sure we are all agreed that that would be inappropriate, and an example of something which has no place on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thing is, to my eye, List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount looks equally absurd. Jpatokal (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Now if you'd like, remove all those unneeded flags that are populating the list. However, I don't get how that discredits the use of flags as a whole. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Whoa there! I specifically stated not to do mass additions or removals whilst the RFC is running. I've no problem with mass removal after the RFC closes should consensus be that the flags are to be removed. Removal of the flags now would mean that other editors cannot see what is being talked about. Similarly, lists that don't have flags currently should not have them added. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • To clarify my stance: I am not opposed to flags in all lists, but they should be used only with good reason. As suggested below at HJ Mitchell's proposal, I think the dividing line is whether the entity/item in question is directly representing the country. Jpatokal (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per reasoning above by Jpatokal where does it stop with the addition of a flag? Mo ainm~Talk 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Apart from Jpatokal's persuasive argument, I think that the flags should be restricted to subjects with a particularly strong tie to the flag state; not just existing, happening, or being born within that area, but something stronger - the subject should directly represent that state or be property of the government. I'm OK with subnational flags on similarly restrictive terms. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Agreed. Incidentally, MOSFLAG already prohibits subnational flags "without direct relevance", should we apply the same criteria to national flags as well? Jpatokal (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Weird, subnational flags were prohibited "without direct relevance" and ntional flags were not as well? I think all things should be prohibited without direct relevance, supernational and subnational. I mean it is just weird that this wasn't stated before.Curb Chain (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As it's worded now the majority of flag usage has indirect relevance. That is to say x is from the  USA is an indirect relevance , where as  USA has a gdp of x is a indirect relevance Gnevin (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lists are not space-constrained. There's no justification for crufting-up the lists since country names are always more understandable and accessible. Plus most of the lists mentioned have nothing to do with nationalism. Why is the country of a rail accident so important? Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by Fetchcomms

I personally like the flagicons because I think flags are interesting, but I support removing them from lists, especially the longer lists, because it slows page load times. For users who often use slow Internet connections, loading these long lists is already a hassle—unless about a flag-related topic, these images are usually decorative and not directly relevant to the list's subject, so removing them would not decrease a reader's ability to understand the topic but would speed up load times for long pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I intially favoured the retention of flag icons in the railway accident lists, because railways are, in the main, under nation state control even if they are constructed and run by private companies (and more arguments). But the stuff's there to be read, and if it takes too long and doesn't add much to the reader's understanding- support proposal to remove them, but on useability, not on relevance. Ning-ning (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Flag icons provide a visual way to more quickly identify a country than text. The first icon on the rail page (Norway) appears to by 187 bytes long. That's not a significant load. Users who absolutely don't want to wait can turn off image download in their web browsers. Gerardw (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Many of the more obscure or less recognizable flags are difficult to distinguish at a small size, as are flags that like alike. Many people (particularly Americans, 12% of which according to one survey can't even identify their own country on a map!) would have no idea what Norway's flag looks like unless it said "Norway" next to it, thus making the icon redundant. Wikipedia isn't used just by academics, so we can't expect the average reader to use a flag to more quickly identify a particular country. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fetchcomms's last comment (in this section) and pov issues.Curb Chain (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • To clarify: do you mean "oppose removing them from lists" or "oppose having them in lists"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I oppose having them in lists unless they are accompanied with a "written form" (whatever is represented typed out) as well.Curb Chain (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fetchcomms and support his proposal. We already have a difficult time loading pages as-is; server-performance aside, we are not helping our readers with numerous HTTP requests (in which one request is made for every image, whether via HTML or CSS) in that aspect. We need to do a better job optimizing our web pages for all users, and having to send several hundred HTTP requests, one for each mini-flag, is doing the exact opposite. –MuZemike 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:PERFORMANCE most definitely applies here; you're claiming a performance enhancement without demonstrating either that the enhancement is measurable to a real reader, or that the enhancement is useful relative to the total load of the page. Flag icons at that resolution average around 300 bytes; that is to say, it would take sixty two of them (62 different flags, that is) to equal the bytecount of the Wikipedia logo which is sent on every pageview. A flag image represents less than 0.5% of the bytecount of the JavaScript that is loaded for every pageview, quite apart from the CSS, HTML and other images that are also sent, and is less than the bytecount of your own signature (and everyone else's, for that matter). The {{flag}} template consumes less than a tenth of the server resources used to render a single citation template; removing all the flag templates from the List of rail accidents (2000–2009) article should reduce the preprocessor node count by less than 3%, while the same effect could be achieved by removing ten {{fact}} tags, which would also avoid ten #ifexist calls which are an order of magnitude slower. This is not the 'optimisation by science' which is welcomed by PERFORMANCE, it is the "optimisation by superstition" which is railed against. Oppose. Happy‑melon 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • But the difference is that fact tags and conditional statements serve an indisputably useful purpose, while these flagicons are really only in lists as a visual extra. They don't convey any information that the country's name wouldn't convey, and to visually impaired readers, there's no point in flagicons, while fact tags and ifexists are still relevant to their reading experience. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about, Fetchcomms. I am saying that using just icons and not writing out a country's name is not appropriate because the flag does not convey information for visually impaired readers. We have to make wikipedia as open to everyone as possible, and using only flags is not right. If visually impaired users are using screen readers or our spoken articles, citation tags would still be read out (loud). But also, people who are using a keyboard without a mouse would be at a disadvantage if they would have to use a cursor to hover over a flag to see what is trying to be represented!Curb Chain (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that anything is lost by the use of {{flagicon}} instead of {{flag}}. This is because in all cases, the country the flag represents is named in the text entry. The flag is an extra for the majority of us who are not visually impaired, but those who cannot see the flag are not really losing any vital information. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In those cases, the flag is not necessary and decorative, which is what the mos forbids.Curb Chain (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Your analysis is badly flawed. While the size of each flag itself is indeed small, much more than 300 bytes (on the order of ~600 bytes, according to a quick curl -I) of additional data is required for the GET request and the headers of the response. More importantly, most browsers are only supposed to allow two concurrent requests per server, so an article with (say) 60 flags will clog up the browser for the period of 2 x 30 round-trip requests; assuming a ping time of 500ms, that's 15 seconds (!) of doing nothing but loading flags. By comparison, the Wikipedia logo is downloaded to the user's PC the first time they see it, and then a cached copy is used for all subsequent views, so the performance impact is minimal. Jpatokal (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith that this is true and that a ping time of 500ms is representative. But even if it is, is it fair to assume that flags would also be cached after first use, and that "60" can be read as "60 different flags on first usage?" —WFC— 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My browser correctly loads all 55 flag images on List of rail accidents (2000–2009) concurrently, in both Firefox and Chrome, so your comment there is either badly out of date or simply wrong; you should probably have noticed that something was amiss from the fact that the page load time is actually about an order of magnitude less than what you calculate it should be. Happy‑melon 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it does not, as you can trivially verify with Firebug -- just make sure local cache is turned off and you use shift-reload. Both Firefox and IE8 use a maximum of six concurrent connections, older versions use less. Incidentally, both violate RFC 2616: A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy. Jpatokal (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
My trivial verification of my original point was indeed with Firebug, with local cache turned off and doing hard reload. Full concurency. We are clearly not looking at the same implementations. Happy‑melon 09:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please take another look. You'll see that Firebug indicates that it could start all flag downloads pretty much simultaneously (= left side of bar is same for all flag images); however, it throttles its downloads to 6 at a time, so it gets the top 6 (blue) and waits on the rest (brown). Once the top 6 are done, it kicks off the next 6 (notice how color of bar changes) and continues waiting on the rest, and so on. Jpatokal (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It took me 33 seconds to load that page on Firefox 4.0.1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree WP:PERFORMANCE applies, flag templates have been around for years. This is a stylistic choice not a performance issue Gnevin (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The performance argument seems spurious to me. Taking the statistics used thus far as fact, I'd say that an appropriately placed [citation needed] is roughly six times as useful as an appropriately used flag, and that both are completely useless when used to such an extent as to state the obvious. Now all we need to do is define "appropriate" and "excessive". —WFC— 06:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of flags from lists. Mo ainm~Talk 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a discussion, not a vote. —WFC— 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • So do you not state if you support or oppose the proposal? Mo ainm~Talk 18:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent In some cases it doesn't make sense but in others (like Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S.)#Broadcasting) it can be useful to casual readers to know based on the national flag in addition to the country name. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of flags from lists per my other post above. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see Fetchcomm's point, but I'm inclined to agree with Gnevin and WFCforLife's positions.   — C M B J   21:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by HJ Mitchell

Drawing on my own experience, the use of flagicons in some areas, for example miliatary biogrpahies and those examples given by Mjroots is widespread and locally accepted, even if it's contrary to the MoS as currently written. As such, I propose a small modification the MoS to read something like:

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, in a limited number of subject areas, where country or nationality are of particular relevance, their addition or removal may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Mass addition or removal of flag icons is disruptive.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I completely support this stance. I was coming here to say something very similar myself. My only quibble wold be with language: "Where country or nationality are of particular relevance the addition or removal of flag icons may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Unauthorized mass addition or removal of flag icons is disruptive." There's no need for all of the qualifiers and "hemming and hawing".
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Ohms law, although I don't like the tone of "unauthorized", and would swap it for "undiscussed". If a few people decide to exploit the technical ambiguity of that word, they'll soon find themselves blocked, which in itself would largely deal with the flag issue. —WFC— 02:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd forgotten about the use of flags in infoboxes of military biographies, such as Henry Allingham. Again, these are appropriate, but appear to be against MOSFLAG as currently written (Although this is an issue for the other RFC on flags). Agree with the proposed revised wording, with "undiscussed" substituted for "unauthorised". Mjroots (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with Henry Allingham. The flags are not used decoratively because what the flags are being represented have paired with their "written form". Do we need to change the guideline? It forbids decorative uses and we are interpreting this exmeplar use as admissible so it doesn't look like we need to change this (guideline).Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The guideline says not to use flags in infoboxes. This is clearly outside what appears to be long-standing practice, where flags are used in infoboxes. It's more a case of clarification than change, but this discussion should really be under the other RFC. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I favour this option, but I would like some examples of "where country or nationality are of particular relevance" in the text, such as sports/military etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I also broadly support HJ Mitchell's position, as long as we can be clear about what "particular relevance" means. Because nationalism has been pretty good at carving the world up into national categories, some could easily argue that pretty much anything is "national" so we'd still have lots of disputes. Plus, with a lower threshold it's easier for a subject to qualify under more than one nationality, and I'd like to avoid Nikola Tesla-type long-term disputes fuelled by subjects which may actually qualify for more than one label. Simply being born or having particular presence inside one country's borders is much too low a threshold (it would allow a flag-frenzy on practically every list). I'd be happy with a threshold that allows national flags in lists of military units, lists of governments/officials, lists of sportspeople when they represent that country in an international event, lists of laws/regulations, &c - but the threshold should be high enough to prevent arguments like "Germany Megacorp operates in 15 countries but it's listed on the DAX", or "Greenland ObscureMineral was found in a quarry in Greenland". bobrayner (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    Also, any hint of a "But we've always/never used flags in this specific area..." clause should be avoided; we're here to reassess the use of flags in lists and this RfC sprung from a dispute on an existing list. bobrayner (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    It's an article, rather than a list, but this is an example of what we are trying to avoid. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    That's a good example. The flag usage on Royal Bahamas Defence Force is really quite special. I'd be happy with any rule which prevents flags-for-the-sake-of-flags like that. (For what it's worth, the RBDF article has flags in a list within the article, I'm sure we can think of simple wording which covers that too - just say "list" and it doesn't matter whether the list comprises 100% of the article or only 20%. bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, with the qualification that we need to batten down the criteria for acceptable use. I think the dividing line is whether the entity/item in question is directly representing the country: this means eg. national armies and Olympic athletes qualify, but rail accidents that happen to take place in a country and planes manufactured by a company headquartered in a country do not. Jpatokal (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Not full support I agree that the MOS should be tightened up and the list of exceptions should be made clear to avoid edit war but I don't agree that it should be done on a case by case basis as there is then no tightening up of the guideline. Mo ainm~Talk 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This allows flexibility, and puts the discussion on what belongs in a given article in the right place, that article's talk page. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: flag icons should rarely be used. They are usually just decorations, they take up valuable space in lists and infoboxes, they emphasise nationalism, they increase download times, and above all, I disagree with this statement above: "Flag icons provide a visual way to more quickly identify a country than text." Try Ghana and Papua New Guinea ... can you conjure up their flags? Even worse, try distinguishing the Australian and New Zealand flags even when at moderate size, let alone tiny size (two countries that are often at issue in a MilHist (or sport) article). There, the flagicon is likely to confuse or mislead. I cannot escape the notion that flag waving is POV in such articles. Tony (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Flags icons have many disadvantages:
  • It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the flag is acceptable without supporting text. So at best, it's only ever a supplement.
  • They emphasise nationality when it's often only one of many characteristics of the subject.
  • Readers cannot identify nationalities based on flag icons.
  • Lists often repeat the same icon.
  • They add low-value data to download. Some readers value succinct high-value web pages when paying money to download, particularly when roaming with a small connected device.
  • There is no clear boundary between the few tolerable cases and the rest.
  • Previous experience shows "monkey-see, monkey-do" will result in flag icons being applied a huge number of articles.
Including caveats that need definition is worse than deleting the guideline. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Complete Support For heads of state and notable three- or four-star generals, Olympic gold medal winners, and other individuals. The test should be whether an individual’s nationality is a significant aspect of the individual’s identity in the public consciousness. If so, I think the inclusion of a flag is A) germane and B) educational, both of which take clear precedence over wikipedians’ notions that [displaying a flag] = [nationalism] = [shameful, guilty feelings] = [bad]. Sure, most any English-speaking individual is familiar with what the U.S. flag looks like, but I would personally appreciate seeing the Australian flag of Brudenell White, the WWII general. I’m certainly not seeing a problem with “nationalism” (most things taken to an extreme are not good). Greg L (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Greg above, I am supportive of allowing a few exceptions, but oppose this proposal. I see this as a similar issue to linking of countries on an equally systematic level. Despite the fact that the use of flags is already discouraged, flags and the associated use of templates such as {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, {{flagcountry}} seem to have proliferated – many of these templates link to the country. Occasionally I feel it 'comfortable' and reassuring to see the flag because it is a clear visual cue to what may be a related subject; it may also reflect a historical way of doing things (which I believe ought to change). In a very large number of cases, I find that the actual 'need', as demonstrated by direct relevance to the subject, is feeble, but the dearth of other media may make it tempting to sex up a page with gratuitous flags. I have come across even fewer cases where the flag icon and the country link to be justified. Whilst performance doesn't matter when it comes to our servers, it matters very much to our readership, among which many are not on high-speed broadband connections. I certainly do not believe there ought to be prohibition on removing these flag icons en masse (not that I'm doing this at present). So no, I oppose. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • OhC, the prohibition is whilst the RFC is running. This is to enable editors to see what was brought up in the RFC. Should it be decided that flags are to go in certain areas where they are currently in use, then I won't stop the process, and am prepared to assist in the removal myself. I just wanted to prevent edit warring over the issue whilst it was being discussed in a civil manner, which I must say has been occuring and I thank all involved for that. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Analysis and Opposition by David in DC

My answer comes as the result of this thought experiment. Look at this United States and this  United States. Does the latter convey ANY information relevant to rail accidents that the former does not? My conclusion is "no". And so my comment in response to the query posed by this RfC is, similarly, no. David in DC (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You could have done all three comparisons: (United States this), ( United States this), (United States and this). Probably not the best example to pick, as the State, civil and naval flag are the same. At the small size used in flagicons, there isn't much perceivable difference between the different variations of the flag over the years United States (1818 flag) United States (current flag).
However, I hope that I've managed to show that there are times when it is appropriate to use flags in lists, and there are times when it is not appropriate. This RFC will hopefully establish some guidance that reflects long-standing practice on the appropriate use of flags, and maybe clarify when it is not appropriate to use flags. Of course, it is possible that consensus is that no flags should be used. If that is the case, then I won't have a problem accepting it. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the comparison used for lists should be - do the flags help or hinder?
      • United States Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
      • United States Nulla ultricies diam a nulla pulvinar aliquet
      • United States Integer et lectus vitae nisi porta sagittis malesuada ut massa
      • United States Fusce egestas dignissim libero ut eleifend
      • United States Duis ut tortor vel mauris suscipit fermentum
      • United States In consequat porta nibh sed sagittis. Curabitur blandit
      • United Kingdom Nulla rhoncus dignissim dolor, eget sodales orci viverra tempus
      • United States Maecenas ipsum tortor, cursus ut tincidunt vel
      • United States Etiam sollicitudin tellus sed elit lobortis aliquet
      • United States Phasellus tempor tortor velit, interdum auctor metus.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that making up our own lists here helps. The question itself is valid, and should be applied to the types of list mentioned towards the top of this RFC, i.e, worldwide accident lists, ship lists, etc. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to pose this question in another way: What do we do with flags of companies, businesses, coporations, and brands; and also their icons? Let's take Nike, Inc, Adidas, Dolce and Gabbana, Coach, Inc. and Chanel.

Nike, Inc: Nike has a swoosh logo, but do we use it when representing the company in lists and tables, or do we use both "swoosh" and the name below it, make an image, turn it into an icon via a template or template syntax and and use thus? Adidas: Adidas has its own logo, which is better recognized than the name. Infact it has an "old-school" logo, so do we use the new school logo as its representative? Dolce and Gabbana: DC is their logo. Do we use that? Coach, Inc.: Coach has its logo with when it was established and a diagram of a coach (do we use the image on the article in the infobox and turn it into an icon?). Chanel: Chanel has the double interlocked Cs as their logo.

My point of illustrating these examples is there are multinationals (such as British Petroleum which I didn't mention) that use flags (some of them put their icon/logo on a rectangular background and do fly it on flag poles)) identically to countries. How are we making guidelines that outlines their use on the political subject when in the future, such issues will need to be ironed out? Such brands and multinationals are equally influential globally but in different arenas. Do the proposals of "flagicons" define these subjects too?Curb Chain (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't something I had in mind, but I'd say that the answer is generally no, we do not use company flags / logos to represent the company concerned. A wikilink is sufficient. Useage of flags/logos in tables is a different matter, and may or may not be appropriate on a case-by-case basis, but that is outside the scope of this RFC. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like wp:instructioncreep to me. So then maybe just a wikilink is sufficient and no flag is should be used/is required, as proposed earlier in this section. Take a look at BRIC and BRICSCurb Chain (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that I think that flags should not be used on the "List of shipwrecks" pages. The reason for this is that many ships are registered under a "flag of convenience". If a Liberian-registered ship, which may not have a Liberian owner or a single Liberian among the crew or passengers, is wrecked in Europe or Asia or the Caribbean, the connection between Liberia and the ship or its wreck may be minimal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Flag of convenience or not, it is a legal requirement for a ship to be registered somewhere. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not contesting that, just whether it is necessary to display, in a list of shipwrecks, a small picture of the flag of the country where the ship was registered. The country of registration can be mentioned without showing a picture of its flag. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We have only one article relating to a list of shipwrecks: list of shipwrecks. Am I missing something? The history of this article does not show that the flags where removed during these rfcs. Are there list of shipwrecks articles like list of shipwrecks in canada?Curb Chain (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
See Category:Lists of shipwrecks by year. We have lots of articles like List of shipwrecks in 1984 (mentioned above), List of shipwrecks in 1985, and so on dating back to the 19th century and down to the present day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

An amendment to HJ Mitchell's proposal

HJ Mitchell made a fine proposal, which seemed to get quite a bit of support, but somewhat conditional. Let me propose an improved version with less ambiguity:

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, flag icons may be used in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or happened within that country. In addition, flags should only be used in lists or tables when the nationality of different subjects is particularly relevant to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first use, and wherever practical in subsequent uses, a flag should be accompanied by the name of the country, in text. Mass addition or mass removal of flag icons is disruptive.

What do you think? Support? Oppose? bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The In addition bit just repeats the opening sentence. Mass addition or mass removal of flag icons is disruptive, Why? How?

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, flag icons may be used in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed,established, based or happened within that country. In addition, flags should only be used in lists or tables when the nationality of different subjects is particularly relevant to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first use a flag must by the name of the country, in text , and wherever practical in subsequent uses, a flag should be accompanied by the name of the country, in text. Mass addition or mass removal of flag icons is disruptive.

. My stab at it Gnevin (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some bits but not others.
  • Happy to add "established, based" &c - I considered something similar before but wanted to keep the sentence simple. Really this is a tradeoff between taut prose and the ability of people to wriggle out of what should be an obvious "et cetera".
  • The list/table sentence may be useful because there are cases where subjects might "qualify" for a flagicon in the earlier part of the guideline, but then that "entitlement" gets misused in lists/tables where the flag isn't relevant to the issue at hand. For instance, it's not unreasonable to use flagicons for naval vessels when discussing a naval battle, but we don't really want them in a list of shipwrecks. A sportsperson might qualify for a flagicon in an article about an international sporting event, but I'd like to avoid giving them the same flagicon in a list of their high school's prominent alumni. I hoped to emphasise the role of article context as well as whether or not specific entities qualify for flagicons.
Does that make sense? Good? Bad? bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Awe see what you mean now , how about?

... It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed,established, based or happened within that country they must have a direct relevance. Relevance can change within the article...

Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Mass addition/removal of flags is disruptive because the addition/removal of flags merely because it is a flag doesn't help. It (flags) should help the reader understand information conveyed. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Define mass? Gnevin (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I realise that rules should be specific; but if we defined mass as, say, 10 articles, then somebody would make a point of doing 9 each day; much as we have people who treat 3 reverts as a daily allowance rather than a warning sign. The underlying behaviour is still problematic, and setting a specific number just tells problematic editors exactly how much they can get away with. (Plus, some articles have a couple of flagicons and others have hundreds; and a few people on a wikiproject might legitimately decide to tweak the appearance of 200 similar articles; where would you draw the line?) bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify, by "mass addition or removal of flags", I meant that whilst this RFC was running, flags were not to be removed from lists that have them, nor added anew to lists that don't have them - i.e. maintain the status quo. Lists created during this time may or may not have flags depending upon the editor writing the list. Once the RFC has ended, then flags may be removed or added per the consensus reached. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Bobrayner, I think your proposal is great, and all these subsequent admendments make your proposal better. What I want to see in this addition to be extended to multinationals and brands (in a previous post I made); I don't want to see editwars started because of this ommision. I'm concerned that if we include "Mass addition/removal of flags is disruptive because the addition/removal of flags merely because it is a flag doesn't help. It (flags) should help the reader understand information conveyed." that we would not be able to remove flags which are currently problematic.Curb Chain (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't the proposed wording already apply to multinationals? If that's unclear/uncertain then perhaps there's room to tweak the proposal - could you suggest some better wording? bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
How about:

The use of flag icons and logos is generally discouraged. However, such icons may be used in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that polity, government, nationality, business, or brand - such as military units, government officials, sports teams, companies or corporations - and help the reader understand information conveyed. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, established, based, or happened within that country and they must have a direct relevance. Relevance can change within the article. On the first use a flag must by the name of the entity in text.

Curb Chain (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Curb Chain, the only objection I have to that is the use of "must" in the last sentence. How about "should generally", as there may be a need for occasional exceptions. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That edit is a backward step to me,when has a subject represented a business or brand? Gnevin (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Errm, well, there's United Kingdom Marmite, as opposed to Australia Vegemite. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you meant United Kingdom New Zealand South Africa Marmite, as opposed to Australia Papua New Guinea Vegemite.
Slightly more seriously, I also think this wording is poor. Business and brand logos should only be used in articles specifically about those businesses/brands, and nowhere else. (We can't use them elsewhere even if we wanted to, since the vast majority are copyrighted and can only be used on WP through minimal fair use.) Jpatokal (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's take some Lists of companies articles, such as list of companies in France. I can't find the best example, but if there was a comparison article or table article that was comparing companies, then their brands/logos would be functional. No, I am not saying to use flags of countries, but the flag of Marmite if they have one. "Norway, Oslo" but the comma would need to be used.Curb Chain (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, is that right?! Yes, I would agree that businesses/brands should be used where a comparison is required between brands and business, such as how maybe how 2 multinationals are competing for the same military contract for US in 2012, but not the national flags where they are being used as products. So logos and the brands are copyrighted? And we can't use them? I guess my proposal is out-the-window!:-)Curb Chain (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for flagicon use is needed

What is needed is a general rationale to be put forward as to when it might be useful to use flagicons in place of country names. I don't see any need to use an icon in prose, so the only times an icon would be appropriate would be in a list, table or infobox. An appropriate use would be to save space and quickly identify a country or nationality where there would be more than one country/nationality listed, and the countries/nationalities would each be mentioned more than once. I would say that if it was important to the list/table/navbox to mention a country or nationality then it would be appropriate to consider use the flagicon shortcut.

With an appropriate rationale then a set of guidelines in usage can be drawn up. Without a rationale, then I wonder why we are using flagicons at all.

Other than saving space, what reasons are there to use flagicons in place of the country name?

I would add that "saving space" by itself is not necessarily a strong rationale because of the difficulties that the general reader might have in identifying all countries by flag; and would need to be considered only in extreme cases, bearing in mind the difficulties of flag identification. For example, it might need to be limited to a handful of countries whose flags could be expected to be globally recognised, or where only a limited number of countries were mentioned in the list/table/infobox. SilkTork *Tea time 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the use of flagicons in Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, where the use is clearly not space saving, as each use is accompanied by the country name, I wondered what the flagicons were bringing to that article.
  • One argument is that the icons are decorative. Decorative is not in and of itself a bad thing. A visually attractive page is more pleasing to read, conveys a sense of order and calm conducive to the learning experience, and invites the reader to stay and read.
  • Another argument is that the icons enable at a glance to get an impression of which countries have won what. The eye can pick out the icons quicker than words.
  • Another argument is that the icons are providing background information about nation's flags.
Because this article is about countries competing against each other, the use in this case appears not only appropriate but desirable. SilkTork *Tea time 10:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The use in Manchester_united#Players also appears attractive, orderly, useful and informative. However, in this case the flagicons are not identified by country names. What would be added or lost by either substituting the icons for names, or adding names to the icons? SilkTork *Tea time 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Manchester_united#Players presents a severe readability problem; many readers will not be familiar with the flags. If nationality is really important (Why? Players don't carry passports on the pitch. You might as well give their star sign) then write the nationality so that it's easily accessible to all readers, instead of concentrating on making a table that is, presumably, visually appealing to somebody who already knows the nationalities. Even for those readers familiar with many different flags, it can be difficult to distinguish them; for instance England vs Northern Ireland. Half the readers would see Norway and think "Hmm, that's one of the scandinavian ones, isn't it? Sweden? No, err, it's Iceland, isn't it?". How many readers recognise Senegal? It's not there to give information; it's there to obstruct and confuse. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and maybe this article passed FAC because we didn't have a guideline which outlined their use, but I think we can agree that the way they used the flags is unacceptable. Cf: WP:ARTICLEPROBLEMCurb Chain (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The eye can pick out the icons quicker than words. This is a myth and even if it wasn't use a sortable table The eye can pick out the icons quicker than words.
Another argument is that the icons are providing background information about nation's flags. Wiki works on blue links , they are interested in the flag the can go to its flag article and learn about it Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
PS if this RFC is going to affect sportsmen the sporting projects especially WP:Footy need to be inform as there is a very strong CON about flag usage within the sporting projects Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Gnevin, you may be surprised to know that {{Flagicon}} works like a wikilink. Click on the flag and it takes you to the article on the country represented. {{Flagcountry}} works in a slightly different way, creating a piped wikilink, such as  United Kingdom, compared to  United Kingdom.
Re the Manchester United article, it's a template that causes the flags to appear by the number {{fs player}}. I'll be making my suggestions for improvement on that template's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't want to just show a flag, unless earlier, the flag has been "identified". We have readers who are not as knowledgeable as us and pasting visual graphics without "telling them what it means" is against the spirit of wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to educate people about flags then the flag should go to the flag of x article . I'd suggest reading the talk history of WT:FOOTY suggestions have been in the past and nearly always rejected Gnevin (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll flag up this discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
So somebody went to the effort of setting up a template which standardised a process where editors diligently write down nationalities of many subjects without that text being shown to the reader? I am disappoint. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
{{Football squad player2}} was created to deal with most of the football-specific issues. Gnevin, a flag-sceptic, was happy with it, and most of WP:FOOTY was receptive to its use, albeit not in love. The main issue was in how to roll it out to 5,000 articles. A year on, nothing, but it does exist and if someone is willing to do the work I see no reason why it, or a similar, suitable alternative, shouldn't be used. —WFC— 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. So, could we discuss the specifics of flags & templates for football-players over at WP:FOOTY, either now or after this RfC? I don't want to stifle discussion but we did originally come here to discuss flags generally, and I wouldn't want to leave a broader question unanswered... bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest waiting for this RfC to end, and use the outcome as a springboard for discussion on flags in specific fields such as football. If you try dealing with {{football squad player}} now, the answer will most likely be "you guys haven't even decided on flag usage at MOS:ICON yet!" —WFC— 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. bobrayner (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to integrate some suggestions...

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, flag icons may be used in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or based within that country. In addition, flags should only be used in lists or tables when the nationality of different subjects is particularly relevant to the purpose of the list or table itself. A flag should be accompanied by the name of the country, in text.

Do you support, or oppose, or want some completely different option? I realise we'll never get wording which makes everybody perfectly happy, but if we can at least get a consensus on something that's broadly an improvement, that would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • support I would strongly support this statement. Another discussion here at the Darts Project was initially about the use of the Ulster Banner but is now asking the question whether flags should be used at all. You only have to look at this article to see a total of 233 flags! Bjmullan (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This will replace the appropriate usages section correct ? Gnevin (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support everything except the wording of the last sentence: while including country names is preferable, esp. in busy infoboxes (eg. Normandy landings) repeating them over and over again is not desirable. "A flag should be accompanied on first use by the name of the country in text"? Jpatokal (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. I actually prefer your wording but had changed my original at gnevin's suggestion. Happy to go along with whichever wording you two can agree on! bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • My suggestion was actually On the first use a flag must by the name of the country, in text which is in effect the same as what your getting at. I've no preference if you use my wording or yours. Gnevin (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • In this comparison, I like Jpatokal's better b/c it flows better.Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flag icons, if used correctly, can be a useful visual aid giving a high level view of some issues. Take the darts article referred to above. From the use of flag icons it can be immediately seen that the majority of players are English. You would be hard pressed to easily deduce this fact without the flags. WizOfOz (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This proposal doesn't change or limit the usage in the article you linked to. A sortable table would be better at identifying groups Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that flags are useful, but the way they are presented, you wouldn't know those flags are English, would you? We are proposing at least to have at least ONE instance where the text accompanies the flag.Curb Chain (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This rehash sounds sensible.Curb Chain (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My issue with this is the same issue I had with this RfC being merged into some obscure talk page in the first place. I support this, penultimate sentence included. But I nonetheless do not believe that the phrase "particuarly relevant" reflects sitewide opinion. —WFC— 05:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. My concern had been that nationalism can be pretty pervasive, so if you only say "relevant" then somebody would argue for the inclusion of flags in any list/table, including examples like Concrete sleeper, and I'd rather we found wording which reduces future conflict. Is there a different word that you'd prefer? bobrayner (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • This better?

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, flag icons may be used relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or based within that country. In addition, flags should only be used in lists or tables when the nationality of different subjects is particularly relevant to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first use a flag should be accompanied by the name of the country, in text.


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

?Gnevin (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is better.Curb Chain (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or based within that country. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is relevant pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first use, a flag should be accompanied by the name of the country. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedent over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or list to the detriment of words.

Most of the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences look like something I'm willing to get behind, but the first and third sentences are somewhat redundant and I'm unconvinced that their implications are representative of sitewide opinion. For what it's worth, here's another mockup.   — C M B J   21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Accompany_flags_with_country_names already states that the countries name must be next to the flag. The root cause of what some people have claimed as local consensus seems to be false as it seems more likely that the members of wikiprojects have not perused this guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the operative word - guideline. Too many people take a guideline as something that must be followed at all times. As it's only a guideline, people are free to ignore it. I suspect that case is that the guideline will normally be followed, but there are sometimes good reasons not to. For example, having the flag country named immediately after a flag in a ship infobox is not something that should be done where a port of registry is shown. If the country is to be named, then it should be after the port of registry, not before. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This registry issue is not yet defined on our current guideline. But, where I indicated it above, some issues we have been discussing have already been defined by our current guideline. I am saying that the whole issue being brought may have went through a totally different course of events had member perused and understood this guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we have consensus that

The use of flag icons is generally discouraged. However, Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or based within that country. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is relevant pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first use, a flag should be accompanied by the name of the country. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedent over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or list to the detriment of words.

should be included into the guideline. How are we going to include this paragraph into the guideline? Do we break them up into sentences and append them to the sections already in there?Curb Chain (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Add a new section to flags called Appropriate use Gnevin (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedent

This is a continuation of a discussion above which I feel is better here . Apart from the above should we add

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedent over flags, flags should not change expected the style or layout of infoboxes or list to the detriment of words

This should deal with USS DeKalb (ID-3010) where the word are almost an after though to the flags Gnevin (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support this, but I think it needs a little copyediting: Did you mean:

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

?Curb Chain (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My grammar ranges from ok to terrible. Please excuse me. Your reworking is better Gnevin (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about non flags?

Just realised the above is all about flags, while this mos about icons

The use of icons is generally discouraged. However, icons may be used in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, nationality or subject matter - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. It is not sufficient that the subject was merely born, made, existed, or based within that country. In addition, icons should only be used in lists or tables when the subject matter is particularly relevant to the purpose of the list or table itself. On the first flag should be accompanied by the name of the country, in text.

What you think? Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we don't need to have separate language for flags and icons: Flags are icons, the way we are discussing them. Flags can be resized with wikisyntax in the px parameter in [[File:Example.png|thumb|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]] or [[File:Example.png|120px|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]] using the |120px| parameter. It can also be resized in the infobox.Curb Chain (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's unhelpful, sorry. The flags are a subset of icons - there are a lot of other non-flag icons which don't have the same problems as the flags, and which are used differently. The text of WP:MOSICON already has a section dealing with icons generally and then a further section dealing with flags in particular - I was hoping to get some improved wording for the top of the flag section to address some recent concerns/disagreements over flag use. Other icons would be a different kettle of fish. Nobody's going to use or Facepalm Facepalm to represent nationality. bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well facepalm actually has to have a purpose to be used. Good Article icon would violate WP:NSR.Curb Chain (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine, the two topics are probably to different to marry Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Which two?Curb Chain (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
non flag icons and flag icons Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_9&oldid=1086953860"