This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Template:Geographic location, which is likely of interest to the regular editors of MOS:ICONS. It cites this guideline, as the template uses decorative icons, but the main issue is whether the template is itself decoration for its own sake, or actually serves an encyclopedic navigation function. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Does the guidance against using flag icons in infoboxes apply even to {{ Infobox country}} in articles about the country? I understand that when an article is about, say, a sportsperson, the country the person is from is only one fact among many about that person, and marking the country with a flag gives it unnecessary prominence. It's also WP:COATRACKy, insofar as while we want to know that Andy Roddick is from the United States, it's as much a digression to then show us that "here is what the U.S. flag looks like" as it would be to list the population of the United States at that point.
But in an article about a country, the country's flag is as pertinent and deserving of prominence as its population, no?
The reason I'm asking is because of this edit by an editor who made several similar edits to other articles at about the same time. If I'm correct and it is acceptable for the flag to be displayed in the infobox in the article about the entity that the flag represents, then this guideline should say so. If it isn't acceptable, then I recommend the guideline clarify this, stating explicitly that flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes even in articles about the places the flags belong to. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, every list article linked to from this template uses country flags in the 'location' column on each row in the tables. Does this comply, or not, with this guideline? My view is that it does not, as the locations of the various attacks were not representing their country in any respect. I tried to remove the flags from a couple of articles ( [1], [2]), but was swiftly reverted ( [3], [4]). Views please. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
They keep being re-added. I'm very concerned about the contents of these lists. There seems to be a rush to add as much acts of violence (regardless whether they are confirmed to be terrorism) in order to make the list as lengthy as possible. T v x1 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A new editor has been adding Nobel Prize icons next to the awardees name in the infoboxes. The editor pointed out that this is common on other language wikipedias. (for example, see User talk:GustafSeb) I haven't seen icons used in this way before, and I can't find anything in the MoS to support this. Is there any guideline for or against the usage of icons in this way? Natureium ( talk) 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the guidance against using flag icons in infoboxes apply to {{ Infobox rockunit}} in articles about geological formations? I recently had an edit war with a user citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as a reason for removing the flag icon but it is quite common for them to be used in such articles. And I gotta admit it looks quite bare without them. Volcano guy 05:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 16#Template:Wikidata icon.
The fact that the nominator was blatantly accused of bad faith in even daring to open this template for discussion says a lot about the bloc vote going on over there right now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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. To me this means we should have the country name in words at least once. In which case List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions fails? Would you agree? Gnevin ( talk) 11:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In responding to an edit template-protected request (temporarily declined), the question has come up whether to remove transit system icons entirely from station (and perhaps similar) navigational templates, or to preserve them along with plain wording; clearly the icons alone are not sufficient even with alt
text because the words in many of them (when they even contain words) are not alway legible in icon size.
I.e., the question is whether to remove the icons like the one shown in front of "London Underground" in this example:
Preceding station | London Underground | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Edgware Road towards
Harrow & Wealdstone
|
Bakerloo line |
Baker Street towards
Elephant & Castle
|
I declined the request at least initially because an argument can be made that the icons are helpful to a subset of editors (each is recognizable instantly to anyone familiar with the transit system in question) and thus are not purely decorative; these icons do not raise the socio-political and WP:UNDUE issues that overuse and misuse of flag icons do; and we're more tolerant of such images in nav templates than elsewhere. On the other hand, the icons are surely not necessary, and it's not clear how helpful they are nor to what percentage of readers. I remain neutral on the question; this is a procedural nomination so template editors know what to do. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC); clarified: 08:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"it's not clear how helpful they are nor to what percentage of readers.", I agree - but if we accept that they are helpful at all, to any readers, then what 'improvement' do we achieve by their removal? -- Begoon 11:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, [and] improve navigation", so should be retained. -- Begoon 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Should transit system icons be used in non-transit infoboxes? The two types of infoboxes that use these icons the most are
Template:Infobox venue and
Template:Infobox museum in their publictransit field even though both give the same advice of "Example: [[Roosevelt/State (CTA)|Roosevelt Station]], [[Chicago Transit Authority]]
" like
Soldier Field does.
Some articles use generic bus and rail icons ( Cardiff Story Museum), some use the transit logos ( Spectrum Stadium) and others use templates like rail color box ( Golden 1 Center). The article that brought me to start this discussion was the icon overload that is Madison Square Garden.
These icons have their place in transit infoboxes, but I oppose the use of these icons in non-transit infoboxes. The infobox parameters do not use them as examples, they do not provide additional information that the text does not provide thus being decorative against WP:ICONDECORATION, some of the icons are being used as text against WP:ACCESS and the icons could also be seen as going against WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Aspects ( talk) 17:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
rail-interchange|bus}}
, {{
rail-interchange|subway}}
, etc.) plus route name or number to indicate mode and service(s), but anything beyond this is unnecessary window-dressing.
Useddenim (
talk) 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Misuse of code syntax highlighting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
See, e.g. Chicharrón. I don't think the flags here are appropriate, and their use is making the material into kind of a pseudo-table, plus it's also inspired a lot of WP:PROSELINE by trying to make entries look tabularly consistent instead of being well-written as an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been rewriting {{ Rail color box}} in Lua.
Jc86035 ( talk) 10:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: If people are doing things like BR, we should probably upgrade the guideline to address this sort of thing, at least in a footnote. I.e., it's not okay do so stuff like that in mid-sentence, for the same reason it's not okay to do in mid-sentence, either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of female racing drivers#Use of flags. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:List of Christian Nobel laureates#Flags and countries. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Station names in ALLCAPS?, which also involves CSS font-manipulation techniques (whether for recognizability or decorative intent) like that illustrated in the infobox in this diff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit: Icons should not be used in prose in the article body.
This was quickly reverted by PlanespotterA320 with the summary: "Undid revision 873439965 by Cinderella157 (talk) you literally changed the wording of this page right after I quoted it in a discussion - that's low".
The edit I made was to have the guidance be consistent with both the heading of the section and with the example. It appears that the text, in its original form can (and has been) misconstrued or misrepresented by quoting out of the context. The intent is clearly wrt use in prose and not from the main body of the article more generally (such as in tables or lists).
The reverting reinstates the ambiguity that occurs when quoting the passage "out of context". It would therefore appears to be contrary to P&G. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway at Talk:2019 Monte Carlo Rally#National flags regarding the use of flagicons in articles for sporting events where there is no organised competition between nations. 1.144.108.211 ( talk) 21:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991#RfC – a MOS:FLAGS matter, about military commanders. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Notice of conversation at Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship regarding usage of flags within sporting articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Some templates like {{
Infobox former country}}
are providing parameters for flag icons that do not comply with
MOS:FLAGS. I'll just quote Ealdgyth on this, from a different page, talking about
this example (the two flag icons for predecessor and successor countries):
Just because an infobox has a field, does not make that field conform to the MOS. MOS:FLAGICON - "Generally, 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" and "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" and lastly "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes" - but note the "MAY" and the "first level" - I hardly think that covers things like historical flags. And in any case - the first two quotes I have highlighted certainly are important here - they have as much importance as anything else. Do not worry - I don't plan to edit war over this - but I've removed those types of flags quite often, and only rarely run into people who object. In those cases, I usually just let them revert... figuring someone else will remove them later as precedent is very much on the side of removing them, rather than having them. ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
My own take on this: Yeah, those two flag icons were not just distracting visual noise, they were downright visually confusing, because the template is mis-coded and they do not align properly. The template should not have parameters for this, because doing it is non-guideline-compliant, even if someone actually knew how to use CSS properly.
It looks like we need to review this series of templates for "screw MOS:ICONS, I'm going to implement my cute decorations anyway" coding, and remove it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also relevant: BilCat observes:
[T]he "foreign_suppliers" parameter in Template:Infobox national military has a tendency to become a flag farm, as seen in Armed Forces of the Dominican Republic and People's Liberation Army. ... - BilCat ( talk) 00:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Some other potential-problem pages noted by Ealdgyth:
So, the issue is beyond just those infoboxes with "country" in their names.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC); updated: 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC); fixing ping to
BilCat —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cquote}}
and {{
quote box}}
(not intended for mainspace) to put cutesy giant quotation marks or "visually poppin'" boxes around block quotations, and so on. I don't think it would be a productive fight to pick. This is a frog we've been boiling very slowly. Or: move an elephant with gentle, constant pressure, not by running at it full tilt and trying a body-check, which'll just put you on your own ass. >;-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC); forgot pings:
Masem. 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Mueller Report#Reference formats – Discussion about using decorative template, {{
redacted content}}
, to simulate the appearance of blacked-out material in censored documents, e.g. CENSORED. While this is not an icon, exactly,
MOS:ICONS is where we address the use of CSS, Unicode, and other font tricks to simulate graphical effects inline in article text; so, this is the proper MoS sub-page to notify about the discussion. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Similar ongoing thread, about another subject area: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of Style#Station names in ALLCAPS (redux). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Input from regulars here would be helpful at this discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In the "Accompany flags with country names" section it says
Following this, the flag alone is used to identify the nationality of military commanders.) To achieve this, the flag-and-name template
The tables on the example page were
edited in 2007 to only show the flagicons, so this is not a very good example to use. The text above predates this change, so it was once correct.
Spike 'em (
talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
flag|Japan}}
(or {{
flag|JPN}}
) would be used first, and {{
flagicon|JPN}}
in subsequent uses. However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (
example) are easier to read if {{
flag}} is used throughout.
There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_election#Flag about how to apply MOS:FLAG. Further input would be welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Draft_pending_submission regarding the proposal to add uw-flag1 to uw-flag4 warning flags AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Old discussion
|
---|
Should there be a new multi-level user warning series, which would be called {{ uw-flag1}}, for violating this specific guideline, separate from the existing {{ uw-mos1}} series? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Sorry, the last RfC template was
removed prematurely by a bot. To repeat, should there be a new multi-level user warning series, which would be called {{
uw-flag1}}, for violating this specific guideline, separate from the existing {{
uw-mos1}} series? (
The draft was G13'd in the interim and is currently waiting
WP:REFUND.) –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 09:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
List of Marxian economists. I think it is, but am not sure. If anyone replies could they please ping me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to flag wave, fine, but is this a correct use of a flag? First, "United States" is not a nationality, "American" is. Second, he, like most golfers, has never represented the nation, he is only from it. Not sure why this is permitted. Not watching this page so if you want me to respond to something please {{ ping}} me. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used.— Bagumba ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There was a fair bit of controversy on that recentmost discussion you linked to. I remember User:SMcCandlish contested the close, and for example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 14#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it. The discussion was opened about F1 nationalities and the close generalized it to all "athletes in an international competition". So, following that close there was "confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer", as I said at the time that I requested review of the close. The non-admin closer, Technical 13, promised to provide the rationale behind his close and the scope, but he kept delaying and no Admin weighed in on the discussion, and it was eventually archived without any action. Shortly after, Technical 13 was the subject of an Arbcom case, and was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee, near as I can tell for "evidence of sockpuppetry that was discovered after the case was accepted." Confirmed here. Technical 13 never did provide the promised decision and scope rationale. After the case closed, I posed a question to the arbs about how to proceed, but I didn't have the energy then to start another discussion here or at AN, especially since I was uninvolved in the original disscussion. But the close and closer seemed problematic. Anyway that's some of the convoluted backstory. Mojoworker ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to raise something that has bugging me for years in the hope that I can finally be addressed. For years this part of the guideline has contained the following wording:
"they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."
I feel that that exact wording is inappropriate for a guideline. Mainly because it presents what's really a personal opinion as un undisputed fact. I feel it would be better if a more informative style of wording would be used here. Something like:
"they may be unnecessarily distracting and could give undue prominence to one field among many."
Such wording is much more in the spirit of a guideline. T v x1 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
While I remove these decorations rather often, referring to WP:DECOR of course, and usually not seeing any objections (of course), sometimes I stumble upon things like this one. Worse yet, the latter seems to be backed up by the well-known invalid argument commonly known as WP:OTHERSTUFF. Can you please review it? — Mike Novikoff 19:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate any input at a new discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing non-English films#Should we use flags? for use of flagicons in a list of films. Aspects ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Template talk:Cite wikisource#Icons. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 19:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a new discussion at Talk:Now United#No, flags are not limited to sports whether or not flagicons should be used in a pop group's member section. Any opinions would be appreciated. Aspects ( talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it good to add the ribbon bars of the awards and decorations received by a person in their page? -- Oritsu.me ( talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist and critic of the Nazis, was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for 1935 in 1936. He had been imprisoned by the Nazis since 1933, the month after Hitler came to power, and died in 1938 after years of mistreatment.
Our article List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates lists the names and nationalities of those who were awarded the Nobel Peace prize. There is also a field for the national flag, which was the swastika. I have removed it twice.
I believe that there is nothing in this section of the MOS that mandates inclusion of the flag, and I see several discussion in the archives on the use of the swastika. I don't see any reason why flags are necessary or indicated at all-- the prize is awarded to individuals and organizations, not nations. And here, the association of the swastika with an opponent of the Nazi regime is inappropriate, to say the least.
I have started a section on the talk page for the Nobel Peace Prize list at Talk:List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates#Swastika_next_to_the_name_of_a_victim_of_the_Nazis
Kablammo ( talk) 22:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I've been asked by a friend, a reader of WP, what the Symbol number is in an INFOBOXFLAG. Specifically, Symbols of Tirana, has 110000 under the flag. I've looked for advice on the INFOBOXFLAG Symbol, and can't find anything that makes sense. Advice, or a pointer to decode it, please. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#National flag icons to represent drivers.
Hundreds of articles in the motorsports area of interest use national flag icons, for instance the infobox of BriSCA Formula 1 Stock Cars, a list of races at Formula Ford, a list of winning drivers at New Zealand Formula Ford Championship, and both the infobox and a list of winners at Barber Pro Series. There are many, many more examples like these. Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article requests use of alt text with emojis. However when inserted via keyboards (as encoded characters) this is not required as it is, strictly-speaking, not an image. Can we add clarity on this, so people do not add alt-text to emojis, such as: ✔️😦🤓
Cheers, AussieWikiDan ( talk) 07:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the "military conflicts" exception of the above is under way at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms in infoboxes. Input of further editors would be welcome. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We have a minor loophole in MOS:FLAGS, which someone (to considerable controversy) has been trying to use to permit a bunch of essentially unrecognizable coats of arms of Crusades-era military commanders as stand-ins for military flags in infoboxes. For details, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms in infoboxes ( talk:WikiProject Military history&oldid=1015747474#Coats of arms in infoboxes permalink), especially the post hoc analysis I did after it was closed without resolution (by a participant not an uninvolved party).
The short version:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: Add the following to the section
§ Do not rewrite history:
Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag.
That should resolve the issue, and any others like this I can imagine (e.g. in a House of Lords vote table; I won't give further examples for WP:BEANS reasons).
@ Srnec, RandomCanadian, Thewolfchild, GraemeLeggett, Urselius, Dragovit, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, Chipmunkdavis, Nigel Ish, Kirill Lokshin, Buidhe, and The ed17: pinging all partcipants in the original discussion.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Do not use the coat of arms of a person as an icon.DrKay ( talk) 10:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we have policies contradicting each other now? So the coat of arts are removed under consensus above, however per military conflicts for
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as pointed out to me by
Volteer1 Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts
, because I failed to read correctly, don't all the coat of arms in the info boxes for these military conflicts also come under the same area? Does
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG need updated text? There are also multiple history conflicts which are said family house against another family house, how do we handle coat of arms there? Are they going in the info box or not? This is more common in the Middle Ages, so...
Govvy (
talk) 10:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Herostratus: this edit:
Special:Diff/1023452609, which you just reverted (
Special:Diff/1023606004) was me reverting the undiscussed change
Special:Diff/986810816 by @
Kaldari:. The onus is on Kaldari to find support for the guideline change, which constricts where flags are appropriate. I do not need to seek a consensus for what is, as far as I can tell, the last revision of the guideline which was reached by consensus.
SSSB (
talk) 11:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I added "American" to
For example, actor Johnny Galecki was born in Belgium, so putting a Belgian flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was Belgian.
. The sentence makes more sense if we mention his actual nationality. It was reverted by User:Herostratus, not sure whether they actually oppose the edit or if any edit to this page has to be discussed first? Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Back on topic - yes, nationality is prudent to include. Giant Snowman 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a draft proposal to comprehensively revise the guidelines on flag icons for sports at User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. I think an RfC on this change could settle whether to continue the usual practice of most sports articles, using flag icons on all international sports because that's what sources do, or to require following the same rules as non-sports articles, limiting flag icons to a small number of international sports.
There's no rush and the current RfC can play out, but it might be worth thinking about more substantial changes, or you might want to take some of these ideas for your own proposal. Discuss as you wish, here or User talk:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
What is too stringent about saying "if the sources use flags, we follow suit"? It is consistent with how we decide nearly everything on Wikipedia -- it's rooted in WP:WEIGHT, policy everyone works with on every article. The only cases that would exclude flag icons are when no source says they're an official representative, and when sources don't display flags as a common practice. Are there any sports articles now using flag icons that can't even meet that standard? And why would we want to keep those flags? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If you survey gymnastics or track and field reliable sources broadly, beyond IOC-conforming events, you'll still see flags galore, with no regard to official representation or selection by officials. If we adopted the 'not strictly official' standard, we'd use flag icons on that basis alone, much as in WP:COMMONNAME we are guided by "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources".
Either option solves the years-long debates that MOS:SPORTFLAG fails to resolve: how do we determine "representative"? Because sources say they are a representative? Or because sources commonly put flags by their names?
Nikita Mazepin is interesting because he has been called the worst driver in Formula One [7], and has endless baggage (sexual harassment and assault [8], unsportsmanlike antics on the track [9]). One could imagine a country (other than Russia) might not choose such a man to represent them. How would that work? If the Russian government pressured the RAF not to license Mazepin, he could get a license from any other country -- maybe one that wants to make Russia look bad by "selecting" [sic] him to "represent" [sic] Russia. FIA doesn't care, because that's not how driver licensing works: the national club issues licenses but does not enter you in races or designate "representatives". Mazepin remains Russian regardless of his license. All he'd need is a ride, which in his case is his billionaire father finding a bankrupt American team and bailing them out in exchange for letting his son drive. It's all hypothetical, but representation is a two way street: if the one represented doesn't consent, it's neither official nor actual representation.
Finally, the anti-doping sanctions against Russia allow Mazepin to call himself Russian. They only restrict the display of flags, colors, anthems. Flaunting his nationality, in other words. If nationality alone equals representation, then he remains a Russian national, can say so, and so is still "representing" [sic] Russia, by the standards Wikipedia currently uses for FIA events. Which is why Wikipedia needs better standards. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
And tellingly, where are the reliable sources saying "bah, what's the point of this new Nations Cup business? Drivers already represent their countries don't they? Don't F1 drivers already compete for their country, not for individual recognition?" Don't they? Well, no. They are individual competitors. FIA is right that this new format is a big change and you don't have reliable sources that dispute it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of these bitter sports flag disputes over more than a decade: User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC#Why is this needed. That's what's broken. Fixing it means choosing a different standard, either a narrow one or a broad one, but in either case one editors can agree on. That would be a good thing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk)
@ Dennis Bratland: you wanted comments on your draft RfC so here goes:
This last change means that the poor soul who has to close this RfC doesn't have to deal with the enourmous tangent of how we define officially, an issue that we are having with the current RfC above.
SSSB (
talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Words like "sanctioned" or "authorized" or "formalized" all point towards someone being in charge, a person or group who must give their approval. This is where it looks really sketchy when Country A is the one authorizing representatives for Country B. Take away the key element of sovereignty and what have you got?
Official is often used to imply a contrast with "actual" or de facto. That's possible, and if it was the case, we would definitely have seen a lot of motorsports media in 2018 or 2019 saying FIA's new Motorsport Games format is kind of a sham since the de facto role of traditional drivers is as representatives. Or before that, they would have similarly said the A1 Grand Prix was not new or unique because Grand Prix drivers were already "really" driving for their country. If we had experts calling BS on the "new and different" claims FIA was making about A1 or about the FIA Motorsport Games, there would be a really strong case there. If I saw evidence of that it would change my mind.
Thanks for helping with those other mistakes, I think I've got them. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to cite anything only underscores that this is original research, not facts you found directly stated in reliable sources. You can't find any experts, no respected publications, who equate Olympic/world cup official national representation with these other sports. None. You've been trying for days, for weeks, and you can't do it. Can you? Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
References
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says that flag icons generally shouldn't be used in infoboxes. Exceptions to this guideline include "infobox templates for military conflicts." I'm wondering whether this exception does or should also apply to Template:Infobox civil conflict. The explanation that "flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" seems somewhat vague. Military and civil conflicts are often so similar that I would think that it wouldn't make sense to include flag icons in one and not the other. -- Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, I changed the sentence...
... to ...
This was to address misinterpretation of the sentence as meaning that flag icons were acceptable to indicate that a person was merely from a particular country, and thus "represented" it. This change was recently reverted. I am now asking for opinions on whether this change should be reinstated. Kaldari ( talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Nobody ever answered my question at the top of this thread, by the way: show me a citation that verifies someone "actually" represents a country, though they do not "officially" represent it. Not a gloss of a press release on a news blog. A real, solid, high quality reliable source. Any topic, any article. One citation. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
If the broader community is willing to let the sports editors have their way, great. We do as sources do, no questions asked. But if the larger community is going to insist on the "official" standard, we need to define it, probably as either the governing body says directly "competitors are official representatives", or we can verify that a country's government or national sports organization is in charge of picking a limited number of competitors to represent them, typically by a tournament, or by fiat. This would mean removing flags from thousands of sports articles. Which I think would make Wikipedia better but sports-related WikiProject editors seem adamant that their articles should look like sports media, i.e., flags as far as the eye can see.
It seems like a problem. Maybe I should stop worrying but I worry. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a healthy part of the reasoning process we use to identify, and back away from, fallacious reasoning in order to focus on sound arguments. There are sound arguments here, but this ain't that. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
...when you repeatedly double down on thepassionate belief that the criterion "official representative" does not exclude using flags [from Formula One articles],then one day do a 180and insist just as passionately that these words will in fact strip flags from [other] articles
I took "everyone can see that you don't recognize any limits on the use of flag icons" as a general comment targeted at those who support flags, not targeted at anyone individually.
SSSB (
talk) 17:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Now you're going to accuse us of sockpuppeting? You are sinking lower and lower by the minute. T v x1 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia doesn't write a lot of rules just to make it look like we know what we're doing. It's not a bureaucracy, it's not a law factory. MOS:FLAG covers sports in seven different places and it all amounts to nothing. If it's zombie legal code we should delete it, and certainly not waste time debating it. The truth is there is no sports infobox, list or table that we can't put a flag on. Right? Don't ask everyone to discuss the definition of "official" or "actual" when the truth is it makes no difference. No matter what it says, there are no sports WikiProjects that would say we can't put a flag icon in an article because of the MOS. As long as these editors keep pretending these rules mean anything, we can't have a real discussion of that.
We're pretty sure we don't want flag icons on every article about authors or engineering or science. But on sports, anything goes. Let's figure out why we want it that way and state it plainly so ordinary people can read the MOS and have some idea what the hell it means. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
What's notable is how rarely Wikipedia's sports articles even mention how competitors are selected. They default to treating everyone as a national representative without citing anything to support it. Which is my point. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Also countries not represented (9.3.5). So the set of all countries represented and all countries not represented, is... all countries.9.3.2 Each ASN [National Sporting Authority] shall be entitled to issue Licences to the nationals of other countries represented within the FIA
ARTICLE 9.4 NATIONALITY OF A COMPETITOR OR DRIVER
9.4.1 As far as the application of the Code is concerned, any Competitor or Driver who has obtained their Licence from an ASN takes the nationality of that ASN for the period of validity of that Licence
9.4.2 All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize-giving ceremonies.
You are unable to cite sources that say "drivers represent their countries". But you can cite sources that consistently use national symbols, especially flags, for drivers, as well as tennis players, golfers, boxers. That's what I've been saying. You want Wikipedia to simply conform with the norms of sources. That's a legitimate opinion that lots of editors would agree with. It's a clear standard that we can understand and put into practice.
The honest thing to do would be to admit you don't want sports to follow the same rules as everything else in MOS:FLAG, and instead simply do as reliable sources do, without asking why they do it or what it means. Admitting that openly would make it possible for us to write MOS rules that people can read and understand, without having to confront esoteric word definitions and an unreadable labyrinth of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be like this. Propose a clear, simple, comprehensible guideline -- "in sports do as sources do" and seek global consensus. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Also read WP:RULES. It's another word for "policy" or "guideline". Or maybe check a dictionary. Please stop wasting everyone's time with these bizarre claims. Your history is right here for all to see. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Since at least 2008, this guideline has consistently required that flagicons only be used in articles for sportspeople when that person is officially representing a nation (rather than simply being from a nation). This RFC is to clarify that that same standard (which has been delineated for 13 years in MOS:SPORTFLAGS) also applies to other articles. (It was specifically proposed in order to deal with boy band articles.) In other words, this RFC should have no effect whatsoever on sports articles. If some sports editors are already ignoring MOS:SPORTFLAGS, they certainly aren't going to change their habits because of a minor clarification in the most general part of the guideline. If motorsports editors (or whoever) want to follow their own rules, that's totally fine (guidelines are only suggestions after all), but you don't need to muddy the waters for all the other articles by derailing this RFC. Maybe "officially" isn't the right word to use. My intention is simply to match the longstanding standard of MOS:SPORTFLAGS. In other words, don't use flagicons to indicate that a person is simply from a country. If anyone has suggestions for a better way to word that, I'm open to suggestions. Kaldari ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You have got a decent argument if you want to fall back to conforming to what sources do, without asking why. I don't want to use flags without knowing why, but a lot of others would. That's your best argument. Wikilawyhering the meaning of words like "official" or "representative" is not going to work. We can all simply look them up a dictionary. They're not obscure, technical terms. They're everyday English. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop making this personal. Your own words prove I'm not "the only one making any demands". I didn't make up WP:BURDEN. The entire Wikipedia community is who is asking you to cite sources here, not me. You've been complaining about persecution over these flag icons long before I came along. You complained of editors who "go to no end to try to demonstrate how dramatically distracting these are in such an article". You admitted "the icons are generated in a purely decorative manner. They are not interactive in any way to confer their meaning." You said that because you know very well we have no sources that tell us what the flags mean. They're just there. Why? You said it yourself: nobody knows, because nobody talks about it. They're decorative. Meaningless. Wikipedia articles don't include divisive nationalistic symbols for a purpose as trivial as meaningless decoration.
(And that Planet F1 blog post is garbage. Just read it. That steaming pile is the best you can do and that speaks volumes.)-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyway. FIA disagrees with you. Lots of reliable sources disagree with you. FIA themselves clearly understands the difference between displaying flags for decoration, and representing a nation. They had to create an entirely new series because they understood very well that F1 is not that:
The Council approved the 'FIA Motorsport Games', a new international, multidisciplinary sporting event that will see drivers competing not for individual recognition, but for their country.
Held at the Bahrain International Circuit on 1 December 2018, the event will pit nation against nation in a patriotic twist on the traditional racing format.
Some might argue that the games can only ever be some kind of novelty event in a sport that in recent history hasn't been drawn up on national lines. But the flags of 49 nations flying over Vallelunga suggests that 'our' Olympics can become an important event on the motor sport calendar.
In essence, the Games brought together drivers from five racing disciplines into a single event in which drivers—in contrast to the historically transnational norm of motorsport—competed under their national flag.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Other editors have what they need to make up their minds so we don’t need to repeat the same arguments. What we can see is three classes: sports that don’t commonly display flags like the NFL, those that display them without official representation like F1, and those that have official representation, like the Motorsport Games. A consensus for limits on using flag icons defined by these classes is possible and can resolve years of debate. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
those that display them without official representation like F1is your opinion, please refrain from stating it as fact. No, I will not justify my reasoning for my belief here (which is different from Tvx1's) because specific cases are not remotly relevant to this discussion.
If you think you know what the facts really are, cite better sources. Otherwise you can expect editors to be convinced by what they can verify. It's how all this works. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
What we don't have is any good sources saying Wimbledon players or Formula One drivers represent anything. Instead I find source after source saying they only represent themselves, or a car constructor:
Watching the brightest and best players from a nation combine their talents on an international stage creates the perfect storm of sporting fervour, where even the least patriotic spectator cannot help but feel the slightest frisson of excitement when their home nation progresses through the tournament. But motorsport, thanks to its various disciplines and oft-clashing calendars, hasn't really had an equivalent. But motorsport, thanks to its various disciplines and oft-clashing calendars, hasn't really had an equivalent. There was, however, one such attempt to pit the world's nations against each other in full-blooded racing competition - aiming to be motorsport's own world cup. Step forward, A1 Grand Prix.
A1GP has partially succeeded in making the country each car represents the main focus, rather than the driver, but only time will tell if football fans will embrace their clubs' cars in Superleague.
I'm not unpatriotic. I support my country's official teams in the Olympics and the World Cup, but I don't see Formula 1 in the same light. The drivers are representing themselves, their teams and their sponsors, and that's about it.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Template:Geographic location, which is likely of interest to the regular editors of MOS:ICONS. It cites this guideline, as the template uses decorative icons, but the main issue is whether the template is itself decoration for its own sake, or actually serves an encyclopedic navigation function. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Does the guidance against using flag icons in infoboxes apply even to {{ Infobox country}} in articles about the country? I understand that when an article is about, say, a sportsperson, the country the person is from is only one fact among many about that person, and marking the country with a flag gives it unnecessary prominence. It's also WP:COATRACKy, insofar as while we want to know that Andy Roddick is from the United States, it's as much a digression to then show us that "here is what the U.S. flag looks like" as it would be to list the population of the United States at that point.
But in an article about a country, the country's flag is as pertinent and deserving of prominence as its population, no?
The reason I'm asking is because of this edit by an editor who made several similar edits to other articles at about the same time. If I'm correct and it is acceptable for the flag to be displayed in the infobox in the article about the entity that the flag represents, then this guideline should say so. If it isn't acceptable, then I recommend the guideline clarify this, stating explicitly that flags shouldn't be used in infoboxes even in articles about the places the flags belong to. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, every list article linked to from this template uses country flags in the 'location' column on each row in the tables. Does this comply, or not, with this guideline? My view is that it does not, as the locations of the various attacks were not representing their country in any respect. I tried to remove the flags from a couple of articles ( [1], [2]), but was swiftly reverted ( [3], [4]). Views please. -- DeFacto ( talk). 18:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
They keep being re-added. I'm very concerned about the contents of these lists. There seems to be a rush to add as much acts of violence (regardless whether they are confirmed to be terrorism) in order to make the list as lengthy as possible. T v x1 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A new editor has been adding Nobel Prize icons next to the awardees name in the infoboxes. The editor pointed out that this is common on other language wikipedias. (for example, see User talk:GustafSeb) I haven't seen icons used in this way before, and I can't find anything in the MoS to support this. Is there any guideline for or against the usage of icons in this way? Natureium ( talk) 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the guidance against using flag icons in infoboxes apply to {{ Infobox rockunit}} in articles about geological formations? I recently had an edit war with a user citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as a reason for removing the flag icon but it is quite common for them to be used in such articles. And I gotta admit it looks quite bare without them. Volcano guy 05:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 16#Template:Wikidata icon.
The fact that the nominator was blatantly accused of bad faith in even daring to open this template for discussion says a lot about the bloc vote going on over there right now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
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. To me this means we should have the country name in words at least once. In which case List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions fails? Would you agree? Gnevin ( talk) 11:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In responding to an edit template-protected request (temporarily declined), the question has come up whether to remove transit system icons entirely from station (and perhaps similar) navigational templates, or to preserve them along with plain wording; clearly the icons alone are not sufficient even with alt
text because the words in many of them (when they even contain words) are not alway legible in icon size.
I.e., the question is whether to remove the icons like the one shown in front of "London Underground" in this example:
Preceding station | London Underground | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Edgware Road towards
Harrow & Wealdstone
|
Bakerloo line |
Baker Street towards
Elephant & Castle
|
I declined the request at least initially because an argument can be made that the icons are helpful to a subset of editors (each is recognizable instantly to anyone familiar with the transit system in question) and thus are not purely decorative; these icons do not raise the socio-political and WP:UNDUE issues that overuse and misuse of flag icons do; and we're more tolerant of such images in nav templates than elsewhere. On the other hand, the icons are surely not necessary, and it's not clear how helpful they are nor to what percentage of readers. I remain neutral on the question; this is a procedural nomination so template editors know what to do. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC); clarified: 08:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"it's not clear how helpful they are nor to what percentage of readers.", I agree - but if we accept that they are helpful at all, to any readers, then what 'improvement' do we achieve by their removal? -- Begoon 11:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, [and] improve navigation", so should be retained. -- Begoon 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Should transit system icons be used in non-transit infoboxes? The two types of infoboxes that use these icons the most are
Template:Infobox venue and
Template:Infobox museum in their publictransit field even though both give the same advice of "Example: [[Roosevelt/State (CTA)|Roosevelt Station]], [[Chicago Transit Authority]]
" like
Soldier Field does.
Some articles use generic bus and rail icons ( Cardiff Story Museum), some use the transit logos ( Spectrum Stadium) and others use templates like rail color box ( Golden 1 Center). The article that brought me to start this discussion was the icon overload that is Madison Square Garden.
These icons have their place in transit infoboxes, but I oppose the use of these icons in non-transit infoboxes. The infobox parameters do not use them as examples, they do not provide additional information that the text does not provide thus being decorative against WP:ICONDECORATION, some of the icons are being used as text against WP:ACCESS and the icons could also be seen as going against WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Aspects ( talk) 17:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
rail-interchange|bus}}
, {{
rail-interchange|subway}}
, etc.) plus route name or number to indicate mode and service(s), but anything beyond this is unnecessary window-dressing.
Useddenim (
talk) 23:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Misuse of code syntax highlighting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
See, e.g. Chicharrón. I don't think the flags here are appropriate, and their use is making the material into kind of a pseudo-table, plus it's also inspired a lot of WP:PROSELINE by trying to make entries look tabularly consistent instead of being well-written as an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been rewriting {{ Rail color box}} in Lua.
Jc86035 ( talk) 10:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: If people are doing things like BR, we should probably upgrade the guideline to address this sort of thing, at least in a footnote. I.e., it's not okay do so stuff like that in mid-sentence, for the same reason it's not okay to do in mid-sentence, either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of female racing drivers#Use of flags. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:List of Christian Nobel laureates#Flags and countries. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Station names in ALLCAPS?, which also involves CSS font-manipulation techniques (whether for recognizability or decorative intent) like that illustrated in the infobox in this diff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit: Icons should not be used in prose in the article body.
This was quickly reverted by PlanespotterA320 with the summary: "Undid revision 873439965 by Cinderella157 (talk) you literally changed the wording of this page right after I quoted it in a discussion - that's low".
The edit I made was to have the guidance be consistent with both the heading of the section and with the example. It appears that the text, in its original form can (and has been) misconstrued or misrepresented by quoting out of the context. The intent is clearly wrt use in prose and not from the main body of the article more generally (such as in tables or lists).
The reverting reinstates the ambiguity that occurs when quoting the passage "out of context". It would therefore appears to be contrary to P&G. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway at Talk:2019 Monte Carlo Rally#National flags regarding the use of flagicons in articles for sporting events where there is no organised competition between nations. 1.144.108.211 ( talk) 21:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991#RfC – a MOS:FLAGS matter, about military commanders. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Notice of conversation at Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship regarding usage of flags within sporting articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Some templates like {{
Infobox former country}}
are providing parameters for flag icons that do not comply with
MOS:FLAGS. I'll just quote Ealdgyth on this, from a different page, talking about
this example (the two flag icons for predecessor and successor countries):
Just because an infobox has a field, does not make that field conform to the MOS. MOS:FLAGICON - "Generally, 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" and "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" and lastly "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes" - but note the "MAY" and the "first level" - I hardly think that covers things like historical flags. And in any case - the first two quotes I have highlighted certainly are important here - they have as much importance as anything else. Do not worry - I don't plan to edit war over this - but I've removed those types of flags quite often, and only rarely run into people who object. In those cases, I usually just let them revert... figuring someone else will remove them later as precedent is very much on the side of removing them, rather than having them. ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
My own take on this: Yeah, those two flag icons were not just distracting visual noise, they were downright visually confusing, because the template is mis-coded and they do not align properly. The template should not have parameters for this, because doing it is non-guideline-compliant, even if someone actually knew how to use CSS properly.
It looks like we need to review this series of templates for "screw MOS:ICONS, I'm going to implement my cute decorations anyway" coding, and remove it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also relevant: BilCat observes:
[T]he "foreign_suppliers" parameter in Template:Infobox national military has a tendency to become a flag farm, as seen in Armed Forces of the Dominican Republic and People's Liberation Army. ... - BilCat ( talk) 00:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Some other potential-problem pages noted by Ealdgyth:
So, the issue is beyond just those infoboxes with "country" in their names.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC); updated: 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC); fixing ping to
BilCat —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cquote}}
and {{
quote box}}
(not intended for mainspace) to put cutesy giant quotation marks or "visually poppin'" boxes around block quotations, and so on. I don't think it would be a productive fight to pick. This is a frog we've been boiling very slowly. Or: move an elephant with gentle, constant pressure, not by running at it full tilt and trying a body-check, which'll just put you on your own ass. >;-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC); forgot pings:
Masem. 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Mueller Report#Reference formats – Discussion about using decorative template, {{
redacted content}}
, to simulate the appearance of blacked-out material in censored documents, e.g. CENSORED. While this is not an icon, exactly,
MOS:ICONS is where we address the use of CSS, Unicode, and other font tricks to simulate graphical effects inline in article text; so, this is the proper MoS sub-page to notify about the discussion. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Similar ongoing thread, about another subject area: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of Style#Station names in ALLCAPS (redux). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Input from regulars here would be helpful at this discussion. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In the "Accompany flags with country names" section it says
Following this, the flag alone is used to identify the nationality of military commanders.) To achieve this, the flag-and-name template
The tables on the example page were
edited in 2007 to only show the flagicons, so this is not a very good example to use. The text above predates this change, so it was once correct.
Spike 'em (
talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
{{
flag|Japan}}
(or {{
flag|JPN}}
) would be used first, and {{
flagicon|JPN}}
in subsequent uses. However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (
example) are easier to read if {{
flag}} is used throughout.
There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_election#Flag about how to apply MOS:FLAG. Further input would be welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Draft_pending_submission regarding the proposal to add uw-flag1 to uw-flag4 warning flags AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Old discussion
|
---|
Should there be a new multi-level user warning series, which would be called {{ uw-flag1}}, for violating this specific guideline, separate from the existing {{ uw-mos1}} series? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Sorry, the last RfC template was
removed prematurely by a bot. To repeat, should there be a new multi-level user warning series, which would be called {{
uw-flag1}}, for violating this specific guideline, separate from the existing {{
uw-mos1}} series? (
The draft was G13'd in the interim and is currently waiting
WP:REFUND.) –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄) 09:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
List of Marxian economists. I think it is, but am not sure. If anyone replies could they please ping me? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to flag wave, fine, but is this a correct use of a flag? First, "United States" is not a nationality, "American" is. Second, he, like most golfers, has never represented the nation, he is only from it. Not sure why this is permitted. Not watching this page so if you want me to respond to something please {{ ping}} me. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used.— Bagumba ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There was a fair bit of controversy on that recentmost discussion you linked to. I remember User:SMcCandlish contested the close, and for example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 14#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it. The discussion was opened about F1 nationalities and the close generalized it to all "athletes in an international competition". So, following that close there was "confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer", as I said at the time that I requested review of the close. The non-admin closer, Technical 13, promised to provide the rationale behind his close and the scope, but he kept delaying and no Admin weighed in on the discussion, and it was eventually archived without any action. Shortly after, Technical 13 was the subject of an Arbcom case, and was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee, near as I can tell for "evidence of sockpuppetry that was discovered after the case was accepted." Confirmed here. Technical 13 never did provide the promised decision and scope rationale. After the case closed, I posed a question to the arbs about how to proceed, but I didn't have the energy then to start another discussion here or at AN, especially since I was uninvolved in the original disscussion. But the close and closer seemed problematic. Anyway that's some of the convoluted backstory. Mojoworker ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to raise something that has bugging me for years in the hope that I can finally be addressed. For years this part of the guideline has contained the following wording:
"they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."
I feel that that exact wording is inappropriate for a guideline. Mainly because it presents what's really a personal opinion as un undisputed fact. I feel it would be better if a more informative style of wording would be used here. Something like:
"they may be unnecessarily distracting and could give undue prominence to one field among many."
Such wording is much more in the spirit of a guideline. T v x1 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
While I remove these decorations rather often, referring to WP:DECOR of course, and usually not seeing any objections (of course), sometimes I stumble upon things like this one. Worse yet, the latter seems to be backed up by the well-known invalid argument commonly known as WP:OTHERSTUFF. Can you please review it? — Mike Novikoff 19:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate any input at a new discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing non-English films#Should we use flags? for use of flagicons in a list of films. Aspects ( talk) 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Template talk:Cite wikisource#Icons. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 19:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a new discussion at Talk:Now United#No, flags are not limited to sports whether or not flagicons should be used in a pop group's member section. Any opinions would be appreciated. Aspects ( talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it good to add the ribbon bars of the awards and decorations received by a person in their page? -- Oritsu.me ( talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist and critic of the Nazis, was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for 1935 in 1936. He had been imprisoned by the Nazis since 1933, the month after Hitler came to power, and died in 1938 after years of mistreatment.
Our article List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates lists the names and nationalities of those who were awarded the Nobel Peace prize. There is also a field for the national flag, which was the swastika. I have removed it twice.
I believe that there is nothing in this section of the MOS that mandates inclusion of the flag, and I see several discussion in the archives on the use of the swastika. I don't see any reason why flags are necessary or indicated at all-- the prize is awarded to individuals and organizations, not nations. And here, the association of the swastika with an opponent of the Nazi regime is inappropriate, to say the least.
I have started a section on the talk page for the Nobel Peace Prize list at Talk:List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates#Swastika_next_to_the_name_of_a_victim_of_the_Nazis
Kablammo ( talk) 22:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I've been asked by a friend, a reader of WP, what the Symbol number is in an INFOBOXFLAG. Specifically, Symbols of Tirana, has 110000 under the flag. I've looked for advice on the INFOBOXFLAG Symbol, and can't find anything that makes sense. Advice, or a pointer to decode it, please. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#National flag icons to represent drivers.
Hundreds of articles in the motorsports area of interest use national flag icons, for instance the infobox of BriSCA Formula 1 Stock Cars, a list of races at Formula Ford, a list of winning drivers at New Zealand Formula Ford Championship, and both the infobox and a list of winners at Barber Pro Series. There are many, many more examples like these. Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article requests use of alt text with emojis. However when inserted via keyboards (as encoded characters) this is not required as it is, strictly-speaking, not an image. Can we add clarity on this, so people do not add alt-text to emojis, such as: ✔️😦🤓
Cheers, AussieWikiDan ( talk) 07:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A discussion regarding the "military conflicts" exception of the above is under way at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms in infoboxes. Input of further editors would be welcome. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox racing driver has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We have a minor loophole in MOS:FLAGS, which someone (to considerable controversy) has been trying to use to permit a bunch of essentially unrecognizable coats of arms of Crusades-era military commanders as stand-ins for military flags in infoboxes. For details, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms in infoboxes ( talk:WikiProject Military history&oldid=1015747474#Coats of arms in infoboxes permalink), especially the post hoc analysis I did after it was closed without resolution (by a participant not an uninvolved party).
The short version:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: Add the following to the section
§ Do not rewrite history:
Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag.
That should resolve the issue, and any others like this I can imagine (e.g. in a House of Lords vote table; I won't give further examples for WP:BEANS reasons).
@ Srnec, RandomCanadian, Thewolfchild, GraemeLeggett, Urselius, Dragovit, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, Chipmunkdavis, Nigel Ish, Kirill Lokshin, Buidhe, and The ed17: pinging all partcipants in the original discussion.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Do not use the coat of arms of a person as an icon.DrKay ( talk) 10:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we have policies contradicting each other now? So the coat of arts are removed under consensus above, however per military conflicts for
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as pointed out to me by
Volteer1 Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts
, because I failed to read correctly, don't all the coat of arms in the info boxes for these military conflicts also come under the same area? Does
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG need updated text? There are also multiple history conflicts which are said family house against another family house, how do we handle coat of arms there? Are they going in the info box or not? This is more common in the Middle Ages, so...
Govvy (
talk) 10:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Herostratus: this edit:
Special:Diff/1023452609, which you just reverted (
Special:Diff/1023606004) was me reverting the undiscussed change
Special:Diff/986810816 by @
Kaldari:. The onus is on Kaldari to find support for the guideline change, which constricts where flags are appropriate. I do not need to seek a consensus for what is, as far as I can tell, the last revision of the guideline which was reached by consensus.
SSSB (
talk) 11:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I added "American" to
For example, actor Johnny Galecki was born in Belgium, so putting a Belgian flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was Belgian.
. The sentence makes more sense if we mention his actual nationality. It was reverted by User:Herostratus, not sure whether they actually oppose the edit or if any edit to this page has to be discussed first? Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Back on topic - yes, nationality is prudent to include. Giant Snowman 18:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a draft proposal to comprehensively revise the guidelines on flag icons for sports at User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. I think an RfC on this change could settle whether to continue the usual practice of most sports articles, using flag icons on all international sports because that's what sources do, or to require following the same rules as non-sports articles, limiting flag icons to a small number of international sports.
There's no rush and the current RfC can play out, but it might be worth thinking about more substantial changes, or you might want to take some of these ideas for your own proposal. Discuss as you wish, here or User talk:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
What is too stringent about saying "if the sources use flags, we follow suit"? It is consistent with how we decide nearly everything on Wikipedia -- it's rooted in WP:WEIGHT, policy everyone works with on every article. The only cases that would exclude flag icons are when no source says they're an official representative, and when sources don't display flags as a common practice. Are there any sports articles now using flag icons that can't even meet that standard? And why would we want to keep those flags? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If you survey gymnastics or track and field reliable sources broadly, beyond IOC-conforming events, you'll still see flags galore, with no regard to official representation or selection by officials. If we adopted the 'not strictly official' standard, we'd use flag icons on that basis alone, much as in WP:COMMONNAME we are guided by "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources".
Either option solves the years-long debates that MOS:SPORTFLAG fails to resolve: how do we determine "representative"? Because sources say they are a representative? Or because sources commonly put flags by their names?
Nikita Mazepin is interesting because he has been called the worst driver in Formula One [7], and has endless baggage (sexual harassment and assault [8], unsportsmanlike antics on the track [9]). One could imagine a country (other than Russia) might not choose such a man to represent them. How would that work? If the Russian government pressured the RAF not to license Mazepin, he could get a license from any other country -- maybe one that wants to make Russia look bad by "selecting" [sic] him to "represent" [sic] Russia. FIA doesn't care, because that's not how driver licensing works: the national club issues licenses but does not enter you in races or designate "representatives". Mazepin remains Russian regardless of his license. All he'd need is a ride, which in his case is his billionaire father finding a bankrupt American team and bailing them out in exchange for letting his son drive. It's all hypothetical, but representation is a two way street: if the one represented doesn't consent, it's neither official nor actual representation.
Finally, the anti-doping sanctions against Russia allow Mazepin to call himself Russian. They only restrict the display of flags, colors, anthems. Flaunting his nationality, in other words. If nationality alone equals representation, then he remains a Russian national, can say so, and so is still "representing" [sic] Russia, by the standards Wikipedia currently uses for FIA events. Which is why Wikipedia needs better standards. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
And tellingly, where are the reliable sources saying "bah, what's the point of this new Nations Cup business? Drivers already represent their countries don't they? Don't F1 drivers already compete for their country, not for individual recognition?" Don't they? Well, no. They are individual competitors. FIA is right that this new format is a big change and you don't have reliable sources that dispute it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of these bitter sports flag disputes over more than a decade: User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC#Why is this needed. That's what's broken. Fixing it means choosing a different standard, either a narrow one or a broad one, but in either case one editors can agree on. That would be a good thing. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk)
@ Dennis Bratland: you wanted comments on your draft RfC so here goes:
This last change means that the poor soul who has to close this RfC doesn't have to deal with the enourmous tangent of how we define officially, an issue that we are having with the current RfC above.
SSSB (
talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Words like "sanctioned" or "authorized" or "formalized" all point towards someone being in charge, a person or group who must give their approval. This is where it looks really sketchy when Country A is the one authorizing representatives for Country B. Take away the key element of sovereignty and what have you got?
Official is often used to imply a contrast with "actual" or de facto. That's possible, and if it was the case, we would definitely have seen a lot of motorsports media in 2018 or 2019 saying FIA's new Motorsport Games format is kind of a sham since the de facto role of traditional drivers is as representatives. Or before that, they would have similarly said the A1 Grand Prix was not new or unique because Grand Prix drivers were already "really" driving for their country. If we had experts calling BS on the "new and different" claims FIA was making about A1 or about the FIA Motorsport Games, there would be a really strong case there. If I saw evidence of that it would change my mind.
Thanks for helping with those other mistakes, I think I've got them. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to cite anything only underscores that this is original research, not facts you found directly stated in reliable sources. You can't find any experts, no respected publications, who equate Olympic/world cup official national representation with these other sports. None. You've been trying for days, for weeks, and you can't do it. Can you? Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
References
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says that flag icons generally shouldn't be used in infoboxes. Exceptions to this guideline include "infobox templates for military conflicts." I'm wondering whether this exception does or should also apply to Template:Infobox civil conflict. The explanation that "flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" seems somewhat vague. Military and civil conflicts are often so similar that I would think that it wouldn't make sense to include flag icons in one and not the other. -- Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In 2020, I changed the sentence...
... to ...
This was to address misinterpretation of the sentence as meaning that flag icons were acceptable to indicate that a person was merely from a particular country, and thus "represented" it. This change was recently reverted. I am now asking for opinions on whether this change should be reinstated. Kaldari ( talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Nobody ever answered my question at the top of this thread, by the way: show me a citation that verifies someone "actually" represents a country, though they do not "officially" represent it. Not a gloss of a press release on a news blog. A real, solid, high quality reliable source. Any topic, any article. One citation. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
If the broader community is willing to let the sports editors have their way, great. We do as sources do, no questions asked. But if the larger community is going to insist on the "official" standard, we need to define it, probably as either the governing body says directly "competitors are official representatives", or we can verify that a country's government or national sports organization is in charge of picking a limited number of competitors to represent them, typically by a tournament, or by fiat. This would mean removing flags from thousands of sports articles. Which I think would make Wikipedia better but sports-related WikiProject editors seem adamant that their articles should look like sports media, i.e., flags as far as the eye can see.
It seems like a problem. Maybe I should stop worrying but I worry. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a healthy part of the reasoning process we use to identify, and back away from, fallacious reasoning in order to focus on sound arguments. There are sound arguments here, but this ain't that. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
...when you repeatedly double down on thepassionate belief that the criterion "official representative" does not exclude using flags [from Formula One articles],then one day do a 180and insist just as passionately that these words will in fact strip flags from [other] articles
I took "everyone can see that you don't recognize any limits on the use of flag icons" as a general comment targeted at those who support flags, not targeted at anyone individually.
SSSB (
talk) 17:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Now you're going to accuse us of sockpuppeting? You are sinking lower and lower by the minute. T v x1 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia doesn't write a lot of rules just to make it look like we know what we're doing. It's not a bureaucracy, it's not a law factory. MOS:FLAG covers sports in seven different places and it all amounts to nothing. If it's zombie legal code we should delete it, and certainly not waste time debating it. The truth is there is no sports infobox, list or table that we can't put a flag on. Right? Don't ask everyone to discuss the definition of "official" or "actual" when the truth is it makes no difference. No matter what it says, there are no sports WikiProjects that would say we can't put a flag icon in an article because of the MOS. As long as these editors keep pretending these rules mean anything, we can't have a real discussion of that.
We're pretty sure we don't want flag icons on every article about authors or engineering or science. But on sports, anything goes. Let's figure out why we want it that way and state it plainly so ordinary people can read the MOS and have some idea what the hell it means. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
What's notable is how rarely Wikipedia's sports articles even mention how competitors are selected. They default to treating everyone as a national representative without citing anything to support it. Which is my point. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Also countries not represented (9.3.5). So the set of all countries represented and all countries not represented, is... all countries.9.3.2 Each ASN [National Sporting Authority] shall be entitled to issue Licences to the nationals of other countries represented within the FIA
ARTICLE 9.4 NATIONALITY OF A COMPETITOR OR DRIVER
9.4.1 As far as the application of the Code is concerned, any Competitor or Driver who has obtained their Licence from an ASN takes the nationality of that ASN for the period of validity of that Licence
9.4.2 All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize-giving ceremonies.
You are unable to cite sources that say "drivers represent their countries". But you can cite sources that consistently use national symbols, especially flags, for drivers, as well as tennis players, golfers, boxers. That's what I've been saying. You want Wikipedia to simply conform with the norms of sources. That's a legitimate opinion that lots of editors would agree with. It's a clear standard that we can understand and put into practice.
The honest thing to do would be to admit you don't want sports to follow the same rules as everything else in MOS:FLAG, and instead simply do as reliable sources do, without asking why they do it or what it means. Admitting that openly would make it possible for us to write MOS rules that people can read and understand, without having to confront esoteric word definitions and an unreadable labyrinth of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be like this. Propose a clear, simple, comprehensible guideline -- "in sports do as sources do" and seek global consensus. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Also read WP:RULES. It's another word for "policy" or "guideline". Or maybe check a dictionary. Please stop wasting everyone's time with these bizarre claims. Your history is right here for all to see. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Since at least 2008, this guideline has consistently required that flagicons only be used in articles for sportspeople when that person is officially representing a nation (rather than simply being from a nation). This RFC is to clarify that that same standard (which has been delineated for 13 years in MOS:SPORTFLAGS) also applies to other articles. (It was specifically proposed in order to deal with boy band articles.) In other words, this RFC should have no effect whatsoever on sports articles. If some sports editors are already ignoring MOS:SPORTFLAGS, they certainly aren't going to change their habits because of a minor clarification in the most general part of the guideline. If motorsports editors (or whoever) want to follow their own rules, that's totally fine (guidelines are only suggestions after all), but you don't need to muddy the waters for all the other articles by derailing this RFC. Maybe "officially" isn't the right word to use. My intention is simply to match the longstanding standard of MOS:SPORTFLAGS. In other words, don't use flagicons to indicate that a person is simply from a country. If anyone has suggestions for a better way to word that, I'm open to suggestions. Kaldari ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
You have got a decent argument if you want to fall back to conforming to what sources do, without asking why. I don't want to use flags without knowing why, but a lot of others would. That's your best argument. Wikilawyhering the meaning of words like "official" or "representative" is not going to work. We can all simply look them up a dictionary. They're not obscure, technical terms. They're everyday English. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop making this personal. Your own words prove I'm not "the only one making any demands". I didn't make up WP:BURDEN. The entire Wikipedia community is who is asking you to cite sources here, not me. You've been complaining about persecution over these flag icons long before I came along. You complained of editors who "go to no end to try to demonstrate how dramatically distracting these are in such an article". You admitted "the icons are generated in a purely decorative manner. They are not interactive in any way to confer their meaning." You said that because you know very well we have no sources that tell us what the flags mean. They're just there. Why? You said it yourself: nobody knows, because nobody talks about it. They're decorative. Meaningless. Wikipedia articles don't include divisive nationalistic symbols for a purpose as trivial as meaningless decoration.
(And that Planet F1 blog post is garbage. Just read it. That steaming pile is the best you can do and that speaks volumes.)-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyway. FIA disagrees with you. Lots of reliable sources disagree with you. FIA themselves clearly understands the difference between displaying flags for decoration, and representing a nation. They had to create an entirely new series because they understood very well that F1 is not that:
The Council approved the 'FIA Motorsport Games', a new international, multidisciplinary sporting event that will see drivers competing not for individual recognition, but for their country.
Held at the Bahrain International Circuit on 1 December 2018, the event will pit nation against nation in a patriotic twist on the traditional racing format.
Some might argue that the games can only ever be some kind of novelty event in a sport that in recent history hasn't been drawn up on national lines. But the flags of 49 nations flying over Vallelunga suggests that 'our' Olympics can become an important event on the motor sport calendar.
In essence, the Games brought together drivers from five racing disciplines into a single event in which drivers—in contrast to the historically transnational norm of motorsport—competed under their national flag.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Other editors have what they need to make up their minds so we don’t need to repeat the same arguments. What we can see is three classes: sports that don’t commonly display flags like the NFL, those that display them without official representation like F1, and those that have official representation, like the Motorsport Games. A consensus for limits on using flag icons defined by these classes is possible and can resolve years of debate. — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
those that display them without official representation like F1is your opinion, please refrain from stating it as fact. No, I will not justify my reasoning for my belief here (which is different from Tvx1's) because specific cases are not remotly relevant to this discussion.
If you think you know what the facts really are, cite better sources. Otherwise you can expect editors to be convinced by what they can verify. It's how all this works. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
What we don't have is any good sources saying Wimbledon players or Formula One drivers represent anything. Instead I find source after source saying they only represent themselves, or a car constructor:
Watching the brightest and best players from a nation combine their talents on an international stage creates the perfect storm of sporting fervour, where even the least patriotic spectator cannot help but feel the slightest frisson of excitement when their home nation progresses through the tournament. But motorsport, thanks to its various disciplines and oft-clashing calendars, hasn't really had an equivalent. But motorsport, thanks to its various disciplines and oft-clashing calendars, hasn't really had an equivalent. There was, however, one such attempt to pit the world's nations against each other in full-blooded racing competition - aiming to be motorsport's own world cup. Step forward, A1 Grand Prix.
A1GP has partially succeeded in making the country each car represents the main focus, rather than the driver, but only time will tell if football fans will embrace their clubs' cars in Superleague.
I'm not unpatriotic. I support my country's official teams in the Olympics and the World Cup, but I don't see Formula 1 in the same light. The drivers are representing themselves, their teams and their sponsors, and that's about it.