Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WP:NOT

Thanks for that piece of work, it probably should be attached to the WP:NOT as a guideline. Lincher 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I don't feel like it's a really big problem.UberCryxic 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The flag thing doesn't really offend me. It may, in the opinion of some, add visual appeal to the articles. Aesthetics is something many wikipedia articles lack. I am not pro-flag, or anti-flag. I am official neutral, but I am not sure that the problem is as big as the essay writer makes it out to be. We have bigger fish to fry here at wikipedia. If we ever get to the point where this becomes the biggest problem we face, we will have a VERY successful encyclopedia. --Jayron32 03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As per Jayron, there are a lot bigger fish to fry. The flags look pretty innocuous to me. SuperGirl 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Flags may be innocuous because they're public domain, but this in general creeps into a problematic area: purely decorative use of images, which is a legal issue when you're talking about copyrighted images not under free licenses (fair use). Almost without exception, images in an encyclopedia should be informational. Flag icons can be used in this context (see New Jersey Devils#Current roster), but sticking the icon of a flag next to a country's name in most contexts is just pointless. – flamurai (t) 11:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A simple flagicon can be a source of discussion, even controversy, for some subjects. Take the example of Paul McCartney given on this subject page. He was born in England (of Irish ancestry), but he is legally British (or a member of the United Kingdom). England is a historical and geographical expression, but not one of nationhood. His info box correctly states he was born Liverpool, England but an England flagicon thereafter seems to indicate his nationality is English, which is incorrect. Flagicons may misdirect or misrepresent some matters in a way that text, if written well, does not.LessHeard vanU

I'm sure everyone agrees that no one should overuse flags, so maybe this could be better off merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style, maybe under 'Images'? Otherwise forking everything, will make it harder for people to get to know guidelines, when there are so many seperate pages. By the way, I'm aware this is an essay, but it sounds like a reasonable minor guideline. - Tutmosis 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is really too specific to be a guideline, but I would support a guideline such as "avoid purely decorative use of images". – flamurai (t) 23:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I proposed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Guideline proposal: Avoid purely decorative images if you're interested. – flamurai (t) 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
it is useful for scanning the article for infomation regarding a specific nation or nationality, e.g. with the Nobel Prize winners it is easy to single out those of specific nations

[edit] Agreement

I agree that flags are very over-used and should be avoided unless there's a good reason to need them. Tuf-Kat 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More examples

  • With flags; without flags. – flamurai (t) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I, for one, think the flagless version is much more pleasing to the eye. The flags version seems cluttered and busy. KrakatoaKatie 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I partly disagree. I think the flags under 'International reaction to sentence' are a small aid to navigation if one is looking quickly for the response from one particular country. However, I would agree that the Iraqi flag before the header 'Local reaction to section' is unnecessary. Unfortunately, what is 'pleasing to the eye' is a subjective thing and hard to make rules about. Fimbriated 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree. The version w/o the flags is almost unreadable, no easy orientation (therefore the blank lines had to be included. --213.155.224.232 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Calling the version without the flags "almost unreadable" is rediculous. It's just as readable as the other version. Actually I think it's more readable with the extra lines added as well. The flagless version is certainly easier on the eyes. Kaldari 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • 'Easier on the eyes' is a subjective thing and hard to make rules about. Fimbriated 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like when there are flags with an article, as long as they are not over-used and if they convey a message. An example of a good use of flags is when someone was born in one country and resides in another. Use both flags where appropriate. Also, I think our national political leaders should have flags with their articles. I don't think flags are needed for everyone, however. As for me, flags are my signature... Que-Can 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image

I've removed the image of the Olympic flag, as it was a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please remember that fair use images can only be used in the article main spaces (the main page though is an exception).--TBCΦtalk? 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

I believe this should be added to the manual of style. >Radiant< 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When flags are useful

I agree with the basic idea of this essay, but it would be good to add something about when flags are useful. I find them useful in very long lists of countries, when sometimes the flag of the country one is looking for may 'leap out' more obviously than the name itself. Does anyone agree? Fimbriated 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Feel free to add such a section. It depends on the list, sometimes it's 'overflagged'. (Radiant) 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I like 'em in infoboxes when the country is relevant... more for location than for nationality. As it happens, I just taught Template:Infobox School how to consume an ISO 3166 alpha-3 country code and display flag plus country name, and fixed a bunch of school articles to have country codes in them, so I guess I just added a few hundred flags to Wikipedia. OTOH, the flag usage is entirely controlled by the template, so if a decision was made to eliminate the flags from that infobox, one change would get rid of all of them.
(Note, incidentally, that I said "like". I don't claim that they're useful or that there's any rational reason to have them there... I just like them. I'm not sure why. I think it's the splash of color plus a bit of emphasis of the international flavor of Wikipedia.)
Jordan Brown 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What infoboxes should look like:

Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman
Born July 31, 1912
Brooklyn, New York City
Died November 16, 2006
San Francisco, California
Residence USA
Nationality American
Field Economics
Institution Hoover Institution (1977-2006)
Univ. of Chicago (1946-1976)
Alma mater Rutgers University
Academic advisor Flag of Russia Simon Kuznets
Notable students Flag of United States Gary Becker
Flag of United States Tom Campbell
Flag of United States Thomas Sowell
Known for Monetarism
Permanent income hypothesis
Critique of Phillips curve
Notable prizes John Bates Clark Medal (1951)
Nobel Prize in Economics (1976)
Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988)

Ain't it beautiful? I wish the Brooklyn flag was on WP... – flamurai (t) 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you should also have the coat of arms for their ancestors, a picture of the university logos, and miniature pictures of the several awards and medals. —Centrx→talk • 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is just flag overload. It's unnecessary. Especially because the vast majority of the flags are unrecognizable to the average person. Better to just reduce the clutter and stick with words. --Cyde Weys 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this infobox is a joke. And I believe that is the point the joker is making... Fimbriated 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do admit that Wikipedia is overflagged, but despite that, it is giving me work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a beautiful infobox... Just H 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in band articles

I really enjoyed this essay and I used it as supporting evidence in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Flags. Best wishes, --Guinnog 12:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Isn't it kind of ironic that flags were overused in this essay? The point you're trying to make would have been harder to make without all those flags, kind of contradicting the purpose of the essay (flags generally help illustrate things better). If i'm not getting my point across, I can always go look around for a flag that signifies irony for you :-) Just H 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not irony. That's good illustration of a problem. Carcharoth 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And the problem wouldn't have been so well illustrated if it weren't for the problem. I can remove all the flags from the essay if you want, but IMO, the essay will look far worse and less convincing. Just like with articles. If flags help an article they should be used.Just H 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That's almost tautological, and thus impossible to argue with. They are way overused on Wikipedia at the moment and I think this essay gains power from illustrating the point using flags. --Guinnog 11:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this not a guideline?

Why is this not a guideline? (Is it too sensible to be one?) -- Hoary 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the Manual of Style discussion mentioned in the section before the section before this one? (SEWilco 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
Yes, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the proper place for a guideline like this. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many flags

This essay has too many flags, they should all be removed. (→Netscott) 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're so funnay. ... NOT! --32X 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one seeing the irony of this essay's utilization of so many flags? With so many of them it does read like a love/hate thing is going on with the authors... (which I suppose explains the post below). (→Netscott) 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you the only one not seeing the section called "Irony" above? (SEWilco 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Indeed. Thanks for pointing out my foot in mouth (or on my keyboard rather). ;-) (→Netscott) 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write this Essay

This essay has a somewhat unencyclopedic feel to it. It's a guideline I support and try to use in the case of many flag disputes but would be more effective if it had a more 'professional' tone to it. Ohterwise I feel like I'm backing up a rant piece. Mkdwtalk 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is currently just an essay, not a guideline, thus it's not really meant to be "encyclopedic", more of an opinion piece I suppose. If someone would like to suggest a similar guideline (perhaps to add to the Manual of Style), I would be all for it. Kaldari 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag To Wave For Supporters Of This Essay

Image:Antiflag.JPG Feel free to remove it from the main essay, but I figured it illustrated the point better than all those pesky...words...Just H 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a link to the band Anti-Flag at the top of this essay as well. Just H 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense since this is not an essay from a flag hater. The title is pretty much clear: "Don't overuse flags". --32X 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Slippery slope, 32x. The author of this could have fooled me in regards to a hatred of flags. There is no mention of flags actually adding to articles, thus I don't see the balance. Just Heditor review 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Under what circumstances not listed here already do flags add to an article? —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is nationality that important?

I just removed flags from List of National Hockey League statistical leaders[1]. In this case, nationality is not directly relevant to the article subject, and including it provides too much detail. – flamurai (t) 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, flags, among their many other problems, make it appear a person was especially patriotic or nationalistic or involved with the government, when there is typically no evidence for it; and anyway it would with its nuances belong included in the article proper. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon cards?

I don't understand the point about overuse of flags making articles look like Pokémon cards. Pokémon cards don't have any flags on them, nor are they usually cluttered. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They do have a variety of icons scattered around the card. Jordan Brown 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EDon%27t_overuse_flags_58ba.html"