Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:MOSFLAG
WT:FLAG
Archive
Archives
*Archive 0 – Jan 2007, pre-MOSFLAG


Contents

[edit] Suggestion related to sports players

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#In_sports.2C_flag_.3D_intl._allegiance.2C_not_necessarily_nationality see this discussion for the basics of this suggestion . I think we need a sports peoples section. See below

[edit] Use of flags for sports people

Their is widespread usage of flags in squads(what do Americans call them?) and listed of results . however flags should only be used where that person can (is?) represent their national team. So flag usage such as Everton_F.C.#Everton_Giants ([1]) are correct however using a national flag for Formula One teams and driver is incorrect

[edit] National team not nationality

The use of flags should only show the national team the player is/was/can play for not where they where born

Comments/Suggestions? Gnevin (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This was added to the MoS page without consensus. It should be removed. Readro (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Then do it or better yet discuss what you don't like about it Gnevin (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What I don't like about it is that it doesn't have consensus. It shouldn't have been added without discussion. Readro (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No one objected. No approval is needed to make changes and WP:Be bold.Plenty of time was give for people too object and in fact they still canGnevin (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have had consensus you are failing to understand what consensus is. No are we going to discuss what you don't like about it? Gnevin (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is required for a consensus, and discussion certainly didn't occur. You certainly should have informed the Formula One WikiProject that you were going to force them into making mass changes to their articles. Readro (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what Readro is talking about is the reference to Formula One. The suggestion that Formula One drivers and teams do not represent their countries is erroneous, and was added without any discussion at the relevant wikiprojects. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In what why do drivers, driving for non national teams represent their countries, F1 rivers no more represent their country have Tiger Woods represents America at the open. This guideline is relevant to hundreds of projects which can't be notified of every change. Gnevin (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nationality has been a fundamental of F1 since it began. See List of international auto racing colors. Also we have, to name but a few, British Racing Motors, Scuderia Italia, Force India, North American Racing Team, Ecurie Belge and Ecurie Ecosse, all very nationalistic. Lastly, the rules mean that each driver has to have their national flag on their car. Readro (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Try telling an Italian that Scuderia Ferrari does not represent Italy, or an Indian that Force India does not represent India. Racing teams have always represented their countries, and all racing cars in Formula One are required to carry national flags. I must ask who or what the hell Tigger Words is though.. ?? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The only bit that applies here is that Lastly, the rules mean that each driver has to have their national flag on their car which is fair enough.However I still feel that throwing in a country name does not mean you represent that country but thats a other issues Any objection to re-adding removing the F1 example?,Tigger Woods is a alternate universe golfer see Kal-l and Kal-el as if you didn't know Gnevin (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to the statement other than the reference to Formula One. And... I really didn't know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add that this goes beyond F1, and represents the majority of international motorsport. Nearly all results or entry lists for events include nationalities of racing drivers (based on their Licensing), and cars used in most form of motorsport carry the flag of the nation they represent. Podium ceremonies also include the display of the driver or team's national flag, and even sometimes their national anthem. You do not have to "represent" a nation for your nationality to be considered important to the sport itself as well as its fans, the ones who read Wikipedia.

I feel the fact of the matter is that, when you do not involve the sports-related WikiProjects in this discussion, especially when you specifically single out a singular sport which has its own Wikiproject, then you do not have consensus to begin with. The359 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Gnevin, I don't think WP:Bold, revert, discuss is really the best approach for building consensus on a manual of style page. Having said that, I don't think your suggested change will work for many sports. You are correct that golfers, tennis players, race drivers, etc. usually don't compete for their nation, but nationality is still a big part of those sports. I have seen Flag of Switzerland SUI next to Roger Federer's name on many television broadcasts of grand slam events. I have seen flags (and sometimes country codes) next to each name on a golf leader board (web and TV) for many tournaments. When source material uses flag icons for each of these athletes, it is natural for Wikipedia editors to adopt a similar style convention. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I love how on wiki you give a proposal an age and not one person objects or even takes the time to dicuss it . I gave it plenty time no one objected but never mind we are discussing it now. Gnevin (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you seem to think a lot of people actually bother to read these silly flag policies. The359 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all this is WP:Guideline not WP:Policy and i know people first come across guideline suchs as this in edit summary's Gnevin (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Football usage

I've removed the section per the above suggestion from its creator. The statement " Flags should be replaced by links to national teams" is simply not going to work for the Football squad templates. The flags are a very useful way of showing players' nationality and I can't see why it needs to change. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection are you saying it's not feasible? Gnevin (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. It's a quick, easy, visual marker for players' nationalities. And not all players from a country play for their national team, so it's also a bit misleading. matt91486 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So why do we not include the players national flag in their info box any more but we plaster it all over the club pages, all players have a national association,which could be used ?Gnevin (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, that difference comes back to the main (IMO) reason for any flag icons, that of aiding navigation and browsing. A singular flag icon in an individual player's infobox does nothing useful. A list of icons attached to player names in a roster list or table helps you quickly find the exceptions, for example, such as the "import" players for the club. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Ireland
  2. Ireland
  3. Ireland
  4. Ireland
  5. Ireland
  6. Ireland
  7. Ireland
  8. England
  9. Ireland
  10. Ireland
  11. Ireland
  12. France
  13. Ireland

I've not problem scanning that list or User:Gnevin/sandbox2 do you truly have difficulty with it ?Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If your point is that we should get rid of all flag icon usage whatsoever, as they are not helpful even for lists and tables, well, good luck with that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My point it we should get rid of unclear and ambiguous flags (see below) ,now one suggestion is my suggestion at User:Gnevin/sandbox2 to replace flags with links to national association removing any ambiguity surrounding nationality . You didn't answer my question , what's your suggestion to fix this crazy flag usage?Gnevin (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing, as I don't think that particular type of flag usage is "crazy" and needs fixing. I don't think your sandbox version of that table is an improvment; quite the opposite, sorry. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine not crazy , how about unclear and ambiguous? Just out of interest what exactly is your issue(s) with the table  ? Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean, my issues with your sandbox table? Two-fold: using full names instead of flag icons increases the "text density" in the table, and puts as much emphasis on the nation names as the player names. Second, the 24 pixel images serve as a kind of bullet, which helps delineate each entry better, especially if there are no borders between table rows. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What's with this anti-flag campaign? The list in your sandbox looks plain ugly. BanRay 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The "roster table with flags" is used on thousands of pages, I would guess. Clearly there is consensus for that. I think the Right Thing To Do™ is update this part of the Manual of Style to clarify what editors should do for the "problem" situations, not to create a new guideline that removes all of those flags outright. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've asked several times people suggest a wording for the problem flags as i cant think of any Gnevin (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Alas, if it was easy, it would have been written long ago... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

[edit] Use of flags for sports people

There is widespread usage of flags in squads and lists of results. However flags should only be used where that person is representing a national team or country such as the Olympic games. Flag usage such as Delray Beach International Tennis Championships[2] or using a national flag for Golf players at the US Open as they are not representing a nation.

[edit] National teams

In sports where the national team in the highest level of competition such as Soccer or Rugby Union, flags are commonly used on club pages to indicate the players' national team. However this can be confusing as readers may assume the flag indicates the player was born in that country or has ties to it, sports such as Rugby league and players like Matt Gafa have loose requirement and so can declare for a chosen nation where there may be little prior ties. Flags should be replaced by links to national associations/federations such as Malta on clubs pages to indicate the national associations/federations associated with [3].

  • Oppose for the reason stated above, i.e. that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current use in football club articles. If anything a link to an association would be more confusing because some people are eligible to play for a number of associations, whereas if they haven't actually played yet, the flag just represents country of birth. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Number57. It is much more useful to use the flagicons than to link to the national association, as it saves on using too much text. It is the hallmark of a good encyclopaedia to use appropriate images to break up text. – PeeJay 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Number 57. This is an encyclopedia, and non-trivial data which help identifying an athlete in a roster, such as his sports nationality, is welcome and reasonable. --Angelo (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose no just no BanRay 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote its a discussion, please stop voting its not helpful . Nothing wrong you claim . So a IP looks up some sports sports clubs pages on wiki

  1. Harlequins_Rugby_League- Matt Gafa who has a Maltese flag but is from Australia
  2. Leinster Rugby - Shane Horgan who has a made up flag
  3. Chelsea_F.C. -Joe Cole who has an english flag
  4. Belfast Celtic- this is a right mess Tom Aherne flag of the ROI was in official in 1919? Tommy Breen flag of the ROI wasn't offical in 1912 and finally John Feenan St patricks flag never offical.
  5. Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. -Mick_McCarthy no flag
  6. Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. -Kevin Foley Irish U21 never senior , Irish flag
  7. Leinster Rugby -Michael Berne and Cameron Jowitt both play for the same country , no wait it a tiny confusing flag i can barely see

Don't know about you but I'm confused . So this is the current guideline : Flags are the players nationality , expect when they are playing for a other country , expect when the national team spans two countries then its the national bodys made up flag, never mind the if country didn't exist use the flag anyway expect when you don't and you use a de facto flag and if all else fails use no flag. Gnevin (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix the articles in question (to use the correct historical flag) instead of looking for a single guideline to make a sweeping justification for their removal? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Because some will object to them , how long do you think Branislav Ivanović would last with or Andriy Shevchenko let alone Germans from 1920–45 Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. In my opinion, people should just use their common sense anyway. If you're making a new article or modifying an existing one, have a look at what is being done in other places, and follow that example. – PeeJay 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is their is no clear cut flag usage guideline accross the numerous sporting code and it's confusing as hell and even people in the wiki projects don't seem to quite understand what the flag represents, be it nationality or national team Gnevin (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If a player has played for a national team, then the flag of that team should be used. If not, then the flag of the (modern) country that the player most strongly associates with should be used. This can be determined by whether a player has declared himself available for selection by a particular country's national team, or it may just be his country of birth. Either way, there is usually a single country that a player is most associated with; it's just a matter of finding it. – PeeJay 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The old Yugoslavian flag couldn't be used in the Chelsea F.C. article next to Branislav Ivanović's name anyway, as we explicitely say not to use flags to represent birth locations. The usage their is to represent nationality, and if a reliable source can show he is Serbian (per WP:BLP) then the flag of Serbia in the Chelsea article is fine. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And will you be adding the Union Jack to the belfast celtic article? So the flags represent the national team but sometimes they don't ,i take it the user guesses which on they want . What about Andriy Shevchenko. Branislav Ivanović national flag at birth was that of , can you not see how unclear flags are here ? Gnevin (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I honestly can't. I think it's much simpler, quicker, and more visually pleasing way to just quickly demonstrate nationality. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking visually here ! I am talking context and content here . Flags where removed from player infoboxes for all the reasons I listed above and more ,these reasons still stand when used in club pages .now a set of guidelines could help this area greatly.The first step would be something like the below

[edit] Suggestion 2, relating to tables

  • Where possible flags should only indicate the players nationality or flags should indicate the players national squad as in many cases these are not one in the same.
  • If both must used . Then it should be clearly indicate where the flag usage doesn't conform too the table header such as


example1

or

example2

  • Table headers should clearly state which form of nationality is being used. Short hand such as Nat is unclear and ambiguous, Comments? Gnevin (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Shorthand such as "Nat" should be acceptable if and only if the table has a legend that explains all abbreviations. I don't think I want to see "International team allegiance" as a header for a column that should only be 24 pixels wide. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So some thing like example3

? Gnevin (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of me being way wrong, could the national team affiliation column header be labelled something like FIFA or IFAB as they are the governing bodies that define player elligibility for play with national squads? Or Nat'l team? Represents? Affiliation?

Or use two flags by default in team/birthplace order?

Two columns would be needed to use two flags in my opinion. I like the IRB,FIFA idea alright example4 Gnevin (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with asterisking situations if clarification is needed, like when a player has multiple options, but on some smaller sides, you could end up with the whole team asterisked if no one has made an international appearance, which concerns me. matt91486 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Then do the reverse in these cases showing nationality and putting the asterisk beside the international playersGnevin (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "nationality" may be confusing and misleading. Don't fix what ain't broken. Use NT flags where possible, the rest - country of birth. BanRay 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you say word "nationality" may be confusing and misleading. Then claim its not broken, every sports table currently is using Nat , which is short for nationality. Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)?
Football rosters don't use "nat". Additionally, when used next to another flag, "Nat" will sound ambiguous. Ethnicity, citizenship, country of birth can all be referred to as "nationality", depending on context. BanRay 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion about all sports not just soccer but if we must talk soccer what do the flags here represent? Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nationality... BanRay 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But i thought nationality was ambiguous.Ethnicity, citizenship, country of birth can all be referred to as "nationality", depending on context. Gnevin (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the current system is generally fine. The only situations where it's ambiguous is if someone has multiple options, a la Gabriel Agbonlahor and has not yet officially been capped. However, in most situations that player has declared their intention to play for one internationally, as Agbonlahor has with England, so he should just be marked that way. matt91486 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So now your saying the flag represent their international team alligence? Confused yet? Matt have you not seen the 7 + example i posted above. For me example4 has been the clearest on the four tables followed by 2 Gnevin (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why the word nationality should never be used, especially next to another flag. BanRay 08:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The flag does represent international team allegiance (which is nationality as well) in roster lists, what's so confusing? BanRay 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The usage across wiki disagrees .I'm finding it difficult to quantify as their is no clear indication of what the flag represents! Gnevin (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, flags always represent nt allegiance, where possible. If you can prove the opposite, an example would come in handy at this point, because I still fail to understand the problem. BanRay 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Always and where possible mean not always [4] , what's wrong with spelling it out as i've listed below which is the status quo but quantified, what is wrong with some guidelines here? How about suggesting some guideline for what out consider correct usage?Gnevin (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, scroll down. BanRay 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 1

Suggestion

  • Flags should not be used on sports peoples player individual pages
  • Flags should only indicate the players national squad or sporting nationality where the player has played for them at a competitive level or has declared for that team.
  • Flags indicating national squad should not be used where a player has not played at a competitive level or declared for the teams as such use age would be WP:OR
  • Where flags are used the table ,it should clearly indicate what the flag represents
  • Flags should included the country names
  • Flags should not indicate the players nationality in a non sporting sense
  • If nationality and national squad are used in the same table the no usage which doesn't comply to the stated table usage should in clearly indicated *

The last two peaces of text in italic is part of the MOS already
*= to be used if the MOS is to be ignored and non sporting nationality is to be includeGnevin (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important point here is that a flag column in a table should have a clear heading, indicating what it represents (player's nationality or team allegiance). As much as I'd like to see country names at least once per article as in the guidelines, sports articles just have too many tables with flags everywhere to see that happen. I think the header part is the simplest fix and best compromise.--Boffob (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The first two are fine, the rest are too complicated and unnecessary, sorry. BanRay 20:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress is being made trying to find common ground here, i don't think we are that far from it .

  1. Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual pages infoboxes
  2. Flags should never indicate the players nationality in a non sporting sense, flags should only indicate the sports person's players national squad or sporting nationality
  3. Where flags are used the table ,it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality
  4. Flags should illustrate the highest level the sports person is associated with. For example if a sports person has has represented their nation or has declared for a nation then the national sport governing body's flag should be used. Where a sports person has not played at international level then the international sport governing body's (such as IRB,FIFA) eligibility rules should be used, if these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations then, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied. Most often place of birth. For example if a soccer player has a Scottish grandparent but both parents are English then Image:Flag_of_England.svg should be used

Comments? Gnevin (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 - :"individual pages" should be replaced with "footballers' infoboxes", since some tables, like the ones with international goals/appearances and some others use flags; Point 2 - see point 4; Point 3 - If you can think of a decent way of doing it, without making it look crowded, I don't mind. Point 4 - What if a soccer player has one Scottish and one English parent? Or what if there's no data about relatives? Sounds rather complicated, I'd go with the place of birth. BanRay 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1 done
Point 2 shouldn't change or be effected by 4 we need to make it clear that sporting nationality,the nationality the flags are showing doesn't equal passport or any other nationality
Point 3 could be done with [1] <ref>Nat. shown here indicates sporting nationality as defined by [[FIFA]]</ref>
Point 4 removed the example, adding place of birth once 2 remains near to its current form this should be ok
  1. ^ Nat. shown here indicates sporting nationality as defined by FIFA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)

Sounds good BanRay 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! Ban can you comment on the two sections below ,the historical issue and the Flags on coaches, owners, GMs, etc. Cheers Gnevin (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion by BanRay

If you feel we really need a "formal guideline" here, I'd suggest the following:

In roster lists:

  • Flags should only indicate the players' national squad or sporting nationality where the player has played for them at any competitive level or has declared for that team (source required).
  • Where the player has no international experience, flags should represent the country the player is eligible to play for.
  • Where the player with no international experience is eligible to represent more than one country, the country of birth should be used. BanRay 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with point 1 , point 2 is vague see sports line Rugby union and league , point 3 is just basic nationality in my opinion and should be covered by 2 if we can clarify it Gnevin (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

These sound good for me. Points 2-3 can probably be combined into one point, I agree on that as well. matt91486 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags on coaches, owners, GMs, etc.

What about the use of flags next to sports businessmen such as owners and GM? (Coaches as well, but coaches can coach national teams, so they are closer to players.) This is common in football/soccer and ice hockey article, I've noticed. Should this be encouraged? Standardized? Should flags be used for teams with owned by a holding company? – flamurai (t) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In roster templates, I don't see any real problem with it. It might not have the same effect as for players and whatnot, but it standardizes visually and doesn't really harm anything. Oftentimes those roles are held by former players, anyway, who would have a designated nationality from their playing career. matt91486 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking mainly about infoboxes – flamurai (t) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion has always been that a very small number (i.e. 1–3) of flag icons in infoboxes is not a terribly useful visual aid. The best usage of flag icons will always be for larger tables and lists (where the icons are aligned vertically), as a means to improve readability. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless space is limited such that the country name cannot be stated (which is an egregious case), or the flag is used as an abbreviation such as in a table of competitions, a flag icon is useless and usually misleading or distracting. —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think flags should be kept to tables only Gnevin (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For me point 1 in the proposed text would mean flag usage such as outlined here and in club info boxes would no long be used. Banray is this within the spirit of what we agreed or do you feel these flags are useful ? Gnevin (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current or Historic flag

Should the sport governing body's current or historic flag be used? Gnevin (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on this? Gnevin (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

The following is the proposed to be added to the mos. Comments welcome

  1. Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual infoboxes
  2. Flags should never indicate the players nationality in a non sporting sense, flags should only indicate the sports person's players national squad or sporting nationality
  3. Where flags are used the table ,it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality
  4. Flags should illustrate the highest level the sports person is associated with. For example if a sports person has has represented their nation or has declared for a nation then the national sport governing body's flag should be used. Where a sports person has not played at international level then the international sport governing body's (such as IRB,FIFA) eligibility rules should be used, if these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations then, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied. Most often place of birth. Gnevin (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion needed at Talk:Edelbrock#Flagicon/seal in infobox

I am requesting an outside third opinion for a content dispute at Edelbrock on a flagicon and a state seal located in the infobox. Thanks in advance for any help. Aspects (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Boffob and Gnevin for their third opinions in response to my request. Aspects (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album release history

Can flags be used like this? I thought it wasnt allowed but i see so much of it. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a case where text would be more clear. – flamurai (t) 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, i thought as much. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for coat-of-arms used for icon images

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Coats of Arms to support coat-of-arms images in flagicon-like size. I have replied there to my opposition to such an idea, but am also posting here to solicit more discussion as I don't think that WikiProject is on too many watchlists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two new flag templates—are they compliant?

User:Ptcamn has recently created flag templates for Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan. Before I barge forward and nominate them for TfD or something, I'd like to get some opinions here if these are compliant with the MOS. Specifically, are they non-flag stand-ins? Right now, they are only used in two articles: Tenochtitlan – Tlatelolco relations (which has a broken infobox anyway because of a missing image) and Battle of Tlatelolco (1473). I don't think they are really helpful in either of those articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't flags per se, but they are somewhat like coats of arms, which I assumed could serve the same purpose. They're not invented in any case. --Ptcamn (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I never assumed they were invented, but I agree with the coat of arms comparison. It's not explicitly mentioned in the section of "non-flag stand-ins" that we discourage the use of coat of arms—or logos, but that's another issue—as a replacement for an actual flag, but I think there is consensus for that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think anything that misleadingly implies that something is a flag when it wasn't is a problem. I'm not sure if the current usage does that. A glyph is a form of writing, not a 'symbol' like a flag. Cop 663 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I could see these templates being useful on the List of Sovereign States in X pages, where coats of arms are already used as stand-ins for flags. They just need to have the borders taken off so people don't start thinking they're flags. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the key question here is do we want to use coats-of-arms as stand-ins for flags, or should those links simply have no icon? I've seen far too many pages where editors feel like every entry ought to have some sort of icon, so they use whatever is available. Coats-of-arms look terrible at 22 pixels, and serve practically zero navigational or browsing assistance for the reader. I'd like to formalize that into the MOS—we really don't want arbitrary images to be used as decorative icons. Recognizable flags only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think any modern entity which could conceivably require a flag icon already has a flag to go with it, but there are certain historical contexts where using coats-of-arms would be appropriate. Military conflict infoboxes, for example. They should be used sparingly, but I don't want to see them formally banned outright. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But what is the purpose of the icon-size coats-of-arms? Surely inside those infoboxes it would be purely decorational, so why bother? You might say that the reader is one click away from seeing a larger version of the image, but that would also be true if they click on the nation wikilink and see a larger coat of arms inside the infobox of that nation's article. I just don't see any utility at all in 22 pixel versions of coats-of-arms. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that in historic lists of countries (Like 1900_Summer_Olympics#Participating_nations or List of sovereign states in 1980), historic flagicons have three purposes. They show people what the flag looked like at the time, they provide navigational aid to people who can recognize them, and they decorate the article. Coats of arms do the same thing. For instance, in a hypothetical List of countries in 1200, having England would probably be more helpful to the reader than just having England, just like having Flag of France France would be more helpful than France. I personally would find it more helpful anyway. They are decorative, I'll admit, but they're not purely decorative. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion needed at Talk:Slovene language#Flagicons in the infobox

I am requesting an outside third opinion for a content dispute at Slovene language on flagicons located in the infobox. Thanks in advance for any help. --Eleassar my talk 13:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)