Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 2

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

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

message: As much as I want to follow this rule and avoid flags in the born/death rows, it seems very bizarre to have to avoid it.  If an artist was born in China in 1910, 1911, 1912, 1948, 1949, 1960.  Each one of these can be a different flag, representing the different systems that raised the artists.  By avoiding the flags, it might actually create more work for the editors. Am I really going to actually type out "Hong Kong British colony"?  The flags have a regional and historical significance for all the artists.  I feel like enforcing a rule that eliminates flag displays doesn't make sense for certain parts of the world.  Is there going to be a bot going out deleting the flags.  Benjwong 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing is better than pictures in this regard. Besides, how many people would recognise the flag for Hong Kong British colony? That flag needs a full writing of the name to explain the flag, might as well ditch the flag then. Plus, do you agree with this edit? Garion96 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a perfect example. I was already thinking along similar lines when I read your post. As another post or two somewhere on this page was saying, just the mere presence of a flag is sufficient, it didn't need to neccessarily be the 'correct' flag for that person for whatever 'historica' significance it 'supposed' to represent. So, it just completely opens the door for pages like the one you just showed, displaying the Nazi flag for all people associated with Germany, or (probably even worse), not associating the Nazi flag with any of the Nazi's, and instead displaying the current German flag instead. I really would prefer there not to be all these flag icons in articles, as to  me they just seem like some way to 'pretty up' the pages without adding any substance to the material, and they extremely ripe for abuse. But, if community consensus supports it, then I really have no choice either. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents that another person sees some flaws in the flag icons. wbfergus  Talk 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If this rule was fully in effect, it needs to be enforced on all the templates.  I just went updating a number of singers/actresses without knowing such a rule even existed.  Every day people are using Infobox actor, Infobox music artists.  There are many other templates too.  It is not clear, still, which rows are allowed.  Does the origin field allow flags?  See an example here.  Benjwong 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Much of this is an independent question of no direct relevance here, since this page is not about what fields should be available in infoboxes.  This proposal (it is not a "rule", though it may some day be a guideline, which would make it a "quasi-rule you shouldn't ignore without a really good reason", more or less) presently only wants to strongly deprecate using flags to indicate birth and death places, for reasons very clearly explained in the proposal.  Yes, there are minor bio infoboxes out there with odd fields like "origin", but they are very, very likely to eventually be subsumed by or at least standardized in conformance with the more generalized . — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How set in stone is this rule?

message: Wikipedia is becoming useless for students since you decided to change all jpg and png to svg, this "images" are almost impossible to copy and paste in works and other stuff, the person that decided to do this simply made our lives harder!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefairh (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the software you're using can't handle SVG images, you could always just copy the PNG thumbnails which Wikipedia automatically generates.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I have no idea what the user above means by "impossible to copy and paste in works and other stuff"; I use both a Mac and a WinXP box, and have no problem with SVGs, other than there aren't a huge number of SVG editing packages out there (countervailingly, one of the best is open source freeware). At any rate, this is not the place to question Wikipedia's use of an image format; take such matters to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop using SVG format! 

message: Wonder when there will be a guidelines that controls the use of flags. Look for example at the infobox in Persian language. The flags are just overused for no real useful purpose other than decorative. CG 17:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I left a note at the article talk page. --John 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would look better if it was a list rather than block text. Cop 663 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Flag use should be restricted to acceptable uses, and all uses should be discussed before being accepted. Carcharoth 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Oh brother, someone please tell me I was imagining this. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is that flag usage is 100% correct (Gnevin 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be historically correct. However in the terms of the proposed guideline it is an excellent example of why not for use in birth and death locations and beware political pitfalls are very sensible rules... Cop 663 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Technically it is correct, but this is indeed a great example why flags should not be used in infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative viewpoint is that it is, rather, a great example of why not to overuse flags (use them anywhere it is possible to use them, instead of where it is useful/informative to do so), nor misuse them (in birth/death place, which can imply nationality where it does not apply, or where political squabbles may arise as a result of the misuse). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, the good old Nazi Germany flag, one of the big issues with "historically correct" flags. Flags make sense for sporting events and military history because they are used to represent something in those cases. But no one is born waving a flag, or can be held reponsible for the flag of the country in which they are born. Which is one more reason why birth and death flags are really stupid.--Boffob 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with your last comment, and I think that the politics aspect needs to be more explicit that flags should not be used just because they are accurate, if political implications will result.  The Nazi flag in particular needs to be addressed, along with the Ulster Banner (probably the two most contentious flags there are). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But these are indeed the acknowledged extremes. How about the ostensibly apolitical English flag? WP tends to confirm that in reality it has strong connotations of the far right. Yet common WP practice is to stick an English flag on anyone who's English. All in all Boffob makes an excellent point, and not just in his/her last sentence. -- Hoary 07:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a very strong opinion on flag of England matter.  There is broad consensus, aside from a handful of really hardcore activistic UB-boosters, that the Ulster Banner should generally not be used except in very narrowly-defined contexts, because it is very, very much a partisan political symbol in most contexts. I don't personally know if this is true of the flag of England.  I leave that up to consensus to determine.  And remain skeptical, personally.  Nationalism by its very nature is almost exclusively a right-wing sentiment, so naturally a) any nationalist usage of a flag is likely to be right-wing, and b) any given flag is subject to right-wing nationalist usage at some point and to some degree.  The question with regard to that flag in particular is whether that usage has eclipsed its nonpartisan usage to such an extent as to make using the flag problematic in Wikipedia (which is clearly the case with the UB, but to me not so clear at all with the FoE). Given the breadth of its use in flag icons, it seems unlikely to me to be the case with the FoE.  And the breadth of that use, BTW, supports at least a somewhat liberal view of flagicon usage in infoboxes for nationality, because actual WP practice determines guidelines, not the other way around. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous flagging

message: As some of you may've noticed I took a long self-imposed break from this topic.  In the interim, Centrx did something typically-Centrx (in my experience with that editor) and tried something intriguing and pretty smart: Instead of fighting over what we should or shouldn't say about infoboxes (other than "don't use flags for birth/death" which is undisputed), just recognize that there's no consensus on that and don't mention it at all.  After re-reading the changes a week+ later, I find myself in agreement with this, and I note that it hasn't generated any visible conflict here.  I'm coming to a "works for me" conclusion about it. I think a few minor details need to be restored (without reference to disputed aspects), but that's a trivial matter, really.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the deafening silence as assent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New compromise - thoughts?

message: There was a notice on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but no obvious place to comment.  Has this been proposed in any formal way?  Based on a quick look I don't see anything necessary, useful, or redeeming about this proposal.  Given the proliferation of new policies and guidelines on so many subjects we have to be very cautious about what is really worth making rules about.  I'm not aware of any significant problem with flag use, just the occasional stylistic question of how to write an article, infobox or other template, etc.  Flags are useful some places, less useful in others, so why not leave that up to people to decide in good faith in the regular editorial process?  There also seems to be some agenda-ish purpose behind the policy, which if true is not a good thing.Wikidemo 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it has already been decided, admin. John and others, are already deleting flags en masse quoting rem redundant flag in the article revision history - these articles are not the many "controversial" or "extreme" type ones mentioned by some on here btw.   Funnily enough a matter of just hours after his last post on here John decided to edit an article I happen to have had a lot of input on (Small Faces) he deleted images (with no warnings) oh and removed the flag icon - he has never edited this article before. Obviously, it must be a co-incidence and nothing to do with my disagreements on here yesterday, I will assume "good faith".  Sue Wallace 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proliferation of inapropriate flag icons on Wikipedia is a huge problem. If you haven't noticed this, I imagine it's because you don't edit that many biographical articles. This guideline is very much needed. I assure you there is no agenda behind this guideline, it is simply an effort to re-enforce good editing practices that are already established. Please don't start unfounded rumors about efforts made in good faith. Kaldari 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is why we need this guideline. Kaldari 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I still don't believe the arguments justify a complete ban on flags in articles.  The arguments put are, in some cases, actually quite offensive, POV, and appear to lack assumed good faith, while others base their arguments on falsely assuming that a country's national flag = nationality and the flag is therefore likely to be offensive or a POV, (regardless of the context in which the flag is used). There is also an assumption that for complete accuracy, historial flags must be used, even though the same argument shows this to be unworkable, eg. as discussed above Jim Carrey is not allowed a Canadian flag to visually show he was born in Canada - in fact he's not allowed a Canadian flag, period, because it is apparently perceived that if a country's flag is added it is seen as showing off, that the country and or person/s are somehow better than everyone else.  Genuine disputes and abiguities do pop up but I believe these can be settled on a case by case basis, presumably as they are at the moment, eg. Gerry Adams but in this eg. it's not just going to be a flag that is argued about anyway; there are always going to be arguments about political figures whether there is a flag or not, I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence I guess a lot of people will have read it too. Is this flag ban something to do with that?  If an outright ban policy is introduced and implemented I will go along with it.  But before we get to that stage, the policy proposals should imo be discussed with a wider spectrum of editors than has so far.  Finally, I strongly object on the grounds of fairness and playing by the rules those who are already deleting flag icons before the ban is agreed. The swift deletion of a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name in the place of birth in an infobox is declared as Flagcruft, flagcruft? Pull the other one!  Or removal cited as "removal of a redundant flag", redundant?  Do they know something we dont know? Is this policy already as good as signed and sealed?  If so, what is the point of this talk page?  Sue Wallace 06:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SW sez: Others base their arguments on falsely assuming that a country's national flag = nationality and the flag is therefore likely to be offensive or a POV, (regardless of the context in which the flag is used). I'd make that: Others base their arguments on the likelihood that accompaniment by a flag will be taken to imply not only nationality but conscious allegiance; since (a) a substantial number of biographees clearly reject(ed) the flags of their nationalities, (b) a large number of them did/do not clearly show the allegiance that the flag may imply, it seems better to limit flag use to clearcut cases of allegiance (e.g. membership of national sports teams. ¶ SW sez: The swift deletion of a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name in the place of birth in an infobox is declared as Flagcruft, flagcruft? Pull the other one! What's done "correctly" in one editor's view isn't necessarily done "correctly" in another's. I'll pull the other one and call it "flaggimmickry" (if not worse). ¶ I understand that you regard removal of flags as "censorship", unfair, and not playing by the (unspecified) rules, but I still don't understand what your argument for most flag use is. -- Hoary 07:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sue, surely you can't deny that, in your words, "a single, solitary, National flag-icon, correctly placed in situ alongside the corresponding country name" is redundant? It's redundant because it doesn't add any extra information. The opposite of redundant is 'necessary'. Are you saying that the flag you describe is 'necessary'? If so, why? Cop 663 13:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  The places of birth or death are relatively minor and not that interesting biographic informations. Placing flags on these fields adds undue weight to these fields. What I am most interested in is the nationality of a person and having a flag here really aids in getting a quick overview. This should be no problem at all for contemporary persons. Cacycle 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can't show and explain the nationality with just a flag. Look at Gerry Adams born in Belfast. As an Irish Republican what flag would fit there? As was pointed out above, Bruce Willis was born in Germany so it would look a little odd having a US flag next to name of the country. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this question is actually about whether there should be a 'nationality' section in bio-infoboxes in addition to 'the place of birth' section. It's a good question, and while in theory, it's outside the remit of this proposed guideline, in fact most of the flag troubles are caused when a person's place of birth is different from their nationality (as in the examples you note). Cop 663 19:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the articles I edit normally, the infoboxes are pretty small for people, eg. Jennifer Aniston, and there is no nationality indicated.  I dont think nationalities should be added to infoboxes, the nationality might not be straightforward and cannot be explained in a small infobox, it should be explained properly in the body of the article.  Cop 663 maybe that is one of the reasons for this flag=nationality misconception causing conflict, for eg. a reader goes to on an article that has a full biography of a person, they see a country flag used to symbolise the nationality in the infobox, afterwards they click on an article about an actor, and they see a flag and assume it is there not as part of the place of birth symbolising only the country in this case but they see it as indicating a nationality or hinting at a nationality? Also maybe an editor who creates biographies uses a flag as part of the nationality, that editor then goes to another article say of a band or actor, sees the flag being used in relation to the country only and assumes it is hinting at a nationality?  Like I say, this debate seems based on assumptions, it's not the flag that is at fault, a flag is not ambiguous, its people's pre-conceived ideas that are. Sue Wallace 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think that's exactly the problem: since the infoboxes don't have a 'nationality' section, a visually striking flag in the 'place of birth' section may cause the casual reader to assume that the flag is representing nationality. I agree that this is about reader assumptions, but it seems to me a natural assumption for a reader to make. Certainly the flag itself is not at fault, but the person who put it there is at fault, for not thinking about other readers and the possibility of misleading them. And since the flag is not necessary, just an added decoration, it's better to get rid of it. Cop 663 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do think there should be a citizenship field in infoboxes and this field should have a flag for contemporary persons. Citizenship is non-ambiguous and as such prevents any nationalistic POV pushing (being born in Germany does not make Bruce Willis a German citizen). Citizenship flags are a great orientation aid if you land on a bio article. I consider flags on other fields as unnecessary and distracting. Cacycle 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this  together with a perusal of the discussion on the talk page can show that flags are not the issue and banning them will not solve the problem. Sue Wallace 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to concur with Sue Wallace and various others on this thread and some of the ones above, that people who just seem to totally loathe flag icons are taking their arguments too far, and relying on emotive "testimony".  Pointing to a particularly hideous article that overuses flag icons is not evidentiary that all use of flag icons (including in infoboxes) is objectively, or is by system-wide consensus held subjectively to be, hideous, or wrong, or misleading, or anything else.  What some here label increasing abuse of flag icons is, from another viewpoint, simply increasing use, i.e. evidence of growing consensus that flag icons are just fine.  (On the other hand, some uses are clearly ab- or misuses, so this proposal does have a reason to lay down some common sense rules of thumb about flag and especially flag icons).  I hold a middle-ground position and the purpose of this document should be to hold a middle-ground position that represents general consensus as best as it can be determined. Neither a extremist position to ban all usage of flag icons other than in sports-related tables, nor an equally extremist position that flag icons can and should be inserted all over the place.  The sooner we stop arguing extremist positions and working on solidifying what everyone can agree on, the more likely this page will be to actually become anything but , which is where it is clearly heading, as I've been warning for over a month, and the faster it will actually become recognized as a guideline when it doesn't fall on its face because of mutually antagonistic extremist b.s. being flung back and forth.  Frankly, the lack of progress here is dismally disappointing. Flag fans need to just darned well recognize that there is not and will never be a consensus that they can stick flag icons all over the place, willy-nilly, and that a clear and just about unanimous consensus, among those participating in the debate so far, has already emerged and solidified that they absolutely should not be used for birth/death place, because this can be grossly misleading in too many cases (please not that part carefully, Sue Wallace).  Flag critics equally need to recognize that their logic that because flags on a few pages can cause problems, and in a few other cases have been overuses to silly extremes, that flags should not be used at all, isn't convincing anyone.  Both entrenched camps: Please just get over the fact that you aren't going to get every single thing you want, and work with each other to arrive at something both sides can live with, or all of this will simply have been months of wasted time. PS: This is not the place for a broader discussion of whether bio infoboxes should address nationality at all.  That should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography.  This proposal assumes, as it must, that because most bio infoboxes, including the meta-version at Template:Infobox person, have such a template field that there is already at least a loose consensus to have such a field (pretty much by definition, since it wouldn't be there otherwise).  It is clear that some flagicon opponents disagree with that whole idea, and are effectively holding this proposal hostage by filibustering attempts to have it address what to do with infoboxes, instead of trying to change consensus on what is and is not appropriate in bio infoboxes to begin with. It is a version of what WP:CONSENSUS condemns as "forum shopping". This is not the right venue to oppose any mention of nationality in infoboxes. Some opponents of flagicons in infoboxes raise other concerns, but most of them do appear to heavily rely upon one version or another of the "infoboxes should not address nationality" theory, which simply is not relevant here. This is not a proposal about Wikipedia definition of "nationality" or whether to even attempt to classify people that way.  We already do classify people that way and if some of us want to change that, they should take it up at the biography project or more broadly as WP:VPP if they find they are not getting any traction at the project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad there are a few on here that can see past the POV distorting this whole flag issue. The only thing I disagree with you on is the birth/death flag ban, but in any case, I welcome your views.  Sue Wallace 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You do make some reasonable points, but I question two ingredients. First, there's mention of comments by people who just seem to totally loathe flag icons. Can you name one or two of these people? How about me, for example? But I don't totally loathe all flag icons; I've said that they're actually helpful in some cases. I think few people here who have disagreed strongly with what you claim to be a middle-ground position totally loathe flag items. However, some of them may loathe some very common uses of flag icons, and rather dislike any impression that their views are being distorted for rhetorical effect. Secondly, What some here label increasing abuse of flag icons is, from another viewpoint, simply increasing use, i.e. evidence of growing consensus that flag icons are just fine. You do seem to subscribe to this "consensus". We can agree, I think, that flag icons constitute additions to articles. Adding them breaks no rules. Deleting them can bring howls of "removing information", "removing visual help" or worse. Gradual addition of flag icons may indeed reflect "consensus" (in the strange WP sense of the word), but I rather suppose that it instead reflects the WP's tendency toward accretion. Flag icons, infoboxes, trivia ("in popular culture") sections: all are much easier to add than to remove. But WP has the guideline Wikipedia:Trivia sections, which does not say "It's obvious that WP editors love trivia, so go ahead and add it to more articles, just don't go overboard"; and in my opinion would benefit from a guideline about flag icons that was modeled on Wikipedia:Trivia sections, with a similar concern for what is helpful in creating good encyclopedia articles and a similar willingness to criticize the habits of a lot of editors. -- Hoary 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent comparison. Sometimes a "consensus" like this that has emerged other than by discussion has to be properly discussed. Spoiler tags and trivia sections were so common as to constitute a "consensus" (in SMcCandlish's sense of the word), but were then removed or greatly cut down because it emerged there was no encyclopedic reason to keep them. --John 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Trivia sections are still widespread but will never be encyclopedic.--Boffob 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but they are definitely on the ebb. I try to integrate and delete four or five a day myself. --John 02:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I am misinterpreting some parties here as being more anti-flagicon than they really are.  I too feel misinterpreted here.  I've invested a lot of time and energy in working on this, including strong deprecation of certain (ab/mis)uses of flag icons, so it's not like I'm a big booster of them.  Where I am coming from is that a huge pile of editors do like them, for certain uses.  I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but we do have very widespread distribution of flag icons throughout the encyclopedia. I observe that nearly all editors who've thought about the matter and cared to comment on it (there are exceptions, including one today) agree that using them for birth/death place is often worse than pointless.  I observe also that there seems to be general agreement that an infoboox (or anything else for that matter) festooned with a flag in every conceivable place one could appear is a bad idea, and we have examples in the proposal of particularly silly orgies of flagiconitis - examples that have survived almost the entire life-so-far of this document.  No big issue then.  What else I see is that a particular viewpoint expressed in various specific ways here is just generally opposed (sometimes entirely, sometimes with sports exceptions) to using flagicons especially in infoboxes, on the basis that they are "nonencyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" (depending on dialect), yet they appear to be dwarfed by the general editorship, who have (by flagicon opponents' own statistics) apparently not had an issue with at least one flagicon appearing in approximately 20% of all bio articles on Wikipedia, up from nearly zero a year ago.  I'm concerned that a few individual editors' ire about some drastic abuses (cases which we mock in the proposal itself), coupled with some over-extended unease about borderline cases causing conflict, has led to a stance against flagicons that doesn't represent the community's actual aggregate feelings about the matter, but one of two extremes (the other represented by the abuses we have pilloried.) I do no believe that the spoiler comparison is a good one.  The saturation level of spoiler warnings was nowhere near this level of deployment.  Just from my own memory, I think that about a year ago (as opposed to now, when they are almost all gone) I did not see spoiler warnings on more than about one or two out of 20 film/book/comic/whatever articles, and they already seemed to be declining, not increasing, entirely without there being anyone organizing against them (i.e., people just saw that the section was called "Plot" and intuited that a spoiler warning was redundant there, and removed it, without there being any draft guideline on the matter).  This issue seems more complex to me than that, and far more involving of large numbers of editors than the spoiler matter was. Trivia sections are also not comparable, as their genesis is radically different.  Trivia sections are common on WP articles, especially about films, TV shows, actors and the like, because most such articles begin as blatant copyvios, copy-pasted verbatim from IMDb. To a very small extent their existence in such articles has caused the spread of these trivia sections to some independent articles, but the trend as noted is reversing itself.  The nature of that issue and this one are in no way related or comparable, and it's not even really an issue at all any longer.  In closing, I would not have spent so much time on this [I think someone accused me of WP:OWN a few weeks ago for bringing that up, but the point is my time and brainpower investment, i.e. that I give a darn, not that this is "mine" in any way; just to be clear] if I did not agree with everyone else here (I think) that there are some problems and pitfalls associated with flagicons and flags more generally.  I just think that the proposal as it stands covers them pretty adequately, and I get the feeling that some others here do not and want it to be far more negative toward them (and evidence suggests that there are others, who have not spoken here but have certainly edited articles in such as way, who want to deploy far more flagicons).  I'm not trying to "represent" consensus, I just hope to be able to help describe what the balance of consensus is.  I think that's the only thing this proposal can legitimately achieve. In short, I am seeing (maybe correctly maybe incorrectly) a conflict between "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and WP:CONSENSUS's clear observation that a small group of internally-unanimous editors cannot possibly trump the flow of the community-at-large. Our "job" here needs to be figuring out where those two forces rub together and create a boundary we can write down.  I am fairly satisfied with the line drawn right now (minus a few nitpicks I'd like to reinsert, but which won't have any overall impact on the tone or direction), but again, I can't speak for anyone but me.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that two big messages from me.  I've been accused of vacillating between monosyllabically dismissive and vociferously tumid; if I'm being the latter it means I care. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand what you mean, but the two different mentions of the N.I. flag serve different purposes.  While the language can certainly be tightened, what we probably need is for one of the mentions of the Ulster Banner to be replaced by a completely different example.  The two points we are trying to make are (if I recall correctly) that a) certain flags only have certain legitimate uses, and b) some flags are too over-politicized to use in most situations; maybe the Nazi Germany flag is a good substitute for the latter case?  I would not want to lose the example that the U.B. is legitimately used for modern sporting purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Sue Wallace 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been raised before. I raised it, but did it in an impolitic way and got understandably bitten back for it, but I think the concern remains valid, especially in terms of visual vs. verbal thinkers (I supported that point, two months ago or whenever, but did not originate it). The super-short version is that graphics are helpful to some readers, for whom an infobox consisting of nothing but dense text is simply "noise" they auto-ignore.  I doubt I need to defend the idea much, given that we are saturated by imagery from every direction in modern life; if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. Probably worth a topic here of its own, but I wouldn't want it to hold up moving forward. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I'm coming in after a lot of time and effort has already been expended, so I apologize if I'm rehashing old ground / issues. I'd just like to get this kick-started because (of course) I've been noticing a lot of flags popping up in obtrusive and unhelpful ways on articles I keep an eye out for. This guideline is much needed and all the careful thought and planning and discussion that has gone on so far could really benefit the community and the encyclopedia if we could get it approved! --lquilter 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on proposal 

message: We have a big message from SMcCandlish above, who has worked hard on improving this project, but is concerned that it is doomed to be rejected due to 'extremism'. However, most of the 'extremism' he is referring to seems to be on the talk page rather than in the proposed policy itself, which looks pretty middle of the road to me. So let's do something positive here. Read the policy carefully, and then write in the space below what, in your opinion, you find unacceptable. And if you think it's perfect, say so too. Once we have a list of possible problems, we can work on them in a constructive way.Cop 663 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that two big messages from me.  I've been accused of vacillating between monosyllabically dismissive and vociferously tumid; if I'm being the latter it means I care. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand what you mean, but the two different mentions of the N.I. flag serve different purposes.  While the language can certainly be tightened, what we probably need is for one of the mentions of the Ulster Banner to be replaced by a completely different example.  The two points we are trying to make are (if I recall correctly) that a) certain flags only have certain legitimate uses, and b) some flags are too over-politicized to use in most situations; maybe the Nazi Germany flag is a good substitute for the latter case?  I would not want to lose the example that the U.B. is legitimately used for modern sporting purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Sue Wallace 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been raised before. I raised it, but did it in an impolitic way and got understandably bitten back for it, but I think the concern remains valid, especially in terms of visual vs. verbal thinkers (I supported that point, two months ago or whenever, but did not originate it). The super-short version is that graphics are helpful to some readers, for whom an infobox consisting of nothing but dense text is simply "noise" they auto-ignore.  I doubt I need to defend the idea much, given that we are saturated by imagery from every direction in modern life; if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. Probably worth a topic here of its own, but I wouldn't want it to hold up moving forward. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I'm coming in after a lot of time and effort has already been expended, so I apologize if I'm rehashing old ground / issues. I'd just like to get this kick-started because (of course) I've been noticing a lot of flags popping up in obtrusive and unhelpful ways on articles I keep an eye out for. This guideline is much needed and all the careful thought and planning and discussion that has gone on so far could really benefit the community and the encyclopedia if we could get it approved! --lquilter 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So, what's wrong with this proposed guideline?

message: I have just updated the core flag templates to allow user control on icon display.  You can disable all flag icons that are rendered via the standard templates by putting the following code in your monobook.css page (or whatever skin you use):
.flagicon { display: none; }
Note that there are still thousands of instances where the flag templates are not used (i.e. the MediaWiki image syntax is used directly), so they will still be visible.
Also note that I actually like flag icons — if they are used in a good context! — so please don't think I'm trying to wipe them out.  I've spent hundreds of hours and thousands of edits on the flag template system.  I'm just trying to find a solution that will work for everybody.  Hope this helps, Andrwsc 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only they were all used in "good context" :) Thanks for the tip! Kaldari 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is a flag "hater". They are useful in Wiki. But many of us have just seen too much abuse of flags in so many forms, which is why we've come to this page.--Boffob 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS to hide flag icons (as individual editor preference) 

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

message: Quite a bit of time has passed since this was proposed; the language has solidified and remained stable other than additions to cover a few cases; the controversial provisions have been adjusted into a consensus that has remained stable since removal of the pro and con "partisan" wording; strife on the talk page has stopped completely (other than inasmuch as WP:ELG conflicts with WP:FLAG, a matter for resolution between these two documents, as it doesn't have anything to do with whether WP:FLAG has consensus); the response has been almost entirely, though in some cases reservedly, positive; out-standing issues can be resolved later, as none of them are "fatal" to guideline's general usefulness; the guideline is sorely needed; some parties (I won't name names here) believe that without it being designated a guideline it should simply be ignored; there does not appear to be anything left to do at this stage - we're unlikely to know in what further ways the guideline can be improved until it has been used as a designated guideline for a time; the last known remaining problem expressed by people at WP:WPFT, the non-national flags issue, has been uncontroversially addressed; and, finally, this is now the third time that actually going to guideline designation has been proposed, with myself (if I recall correctly) being the opponent of the move last time (my objections have now been resolved by the work over the last month-plus).
So, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just do it.  If a strong and substantive objection is raised, please simply change  back to  and raise your concerns clearly here. 
PS: I'm moving it to an MOS name, per older and uncontroverial discussions that this logically has to be part of the MOS when it is designated a guideline, since it is a style guideline, and is a general one, not limited to some specific topic or project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS: I've actually been half-bold and made the rename but not changed the tag yet; another day to listen for last-minute issue won't kill anyone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! But we need a link to it from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page, with a summary. Not sure where to put it - under 'Images' or in its own section? Cop 663 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already covered at ; I don't have any huge objection to adding a very short summary of it to MOS itself, but I don't see that it's essential; much of what is listed in  is not summarized in MOS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: I have proposed (neutrally) at WT:MOS that such a summary might be appropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully support the upgrading of this proposal. It has been a long time in the making and I think it has been well hashed-out. Kaldari 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I too support the upgrading to guideline. Congratulations. Carcharoth 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone has changed it to , after I "advertised" it yesterday for last-hour comments/concerns at WT:MOS and no one complained, so here we are! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations, SMcCandlish, and thank you for all your painstaking work. Cop 663 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations indeed. It's certainly not a trivial task to shepherd a guideline to approval. For the sake of nostalgia, here is the original version of this page preserved for posterity. It's certainly come a long way since then :) Kaldari 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Well done everybody for all the work that has gone into this. --John 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; lots of others have done great stuff here, especially sanity checks in the "don't rewrite history" and other factuality/abuse veins. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interest of having this guideline survive, I would suggest that we let it marinate for a while before anyone goes on any flag deleting "sprees". Let's try to keep the use of this guideline as non-confrontational and non-controversial as possible, at least until it's had a good while to be seen and reviewed by the better part of the editing community. Kaldari 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw! (Puts flag-removing knife away sadly). --John 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the guideline will not get much notice by the general population until someone applies it against articles. I'd avoid the mass killing sprees, but a small number of surgical strikes here and there that reference the guideline would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I just know that people often have extreme reactions (rightfully so) to style "correcting" sprees. We should apply this guideline judiciously (at least until it's survived more than a few days). Kaldari 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  I think the first targets should be use of flags for birth/death lines. The most cautious approach would be to move them to nationality/citizenship lines, and then perhaps later challenge whether they are appropriate at all in the article in question.  Second target I'd nuke would be overuse in infoboxes (e.g. 5 flag icons for various things in one infobox.)  Third, removal of the Ulster Banner from where it doesn't belong (despite some paranoia about this, there is no "campaign to remove the flag of Northern Ireland[sic] from Wikipedia") and replace it with a HTML comment that says that no flag should appear there and to see WP:MOSFLAG for why.  Just my pet peeves, but I imagine others here share them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that anything should be done about the Ulster Banner just yet.  There is a mediation currently in progress about this specific issue (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage), and I think it would be highly inappropriate to "torpedo" that mediation by making UB-related edits before that mediation concludes.  I am also very concerned that this freshly-minted guideline is perceived by some as a green light to remove pretty much any flag usage, with the blessing of an "official guideline" to back up those edits.  Andrwsc 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Even so, Andrwsc has a reasonable point; regardless of the nitty-gritty details, it would probably be best to not do anything relating to Ulster Banner issues until the mediation (or more, if it goes there) is resolved, just to not muddy the waters. It's not like there is some kind of deadline or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: However, continued fighting in Irish topics should not indefinitely postpone application of this or any other guidline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline time 

message: This section is wrong and should be removed. There are plenty of sources showing this to be the unofficial flag of Nrothern Ireland, and this guidline should not be hijacked by Irish republican editors who wish to censor wikipedia from images they find offensive. Astrotrain 11:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section already says the flag is unofficial. That is the whole point. And the very fact that this flag causes edit wars and endless debates is a very good reason not to use an unofficial flag to represent a place in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. Cop 663 12:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about the other three unofficial 'subnational' flags of the United Kingdom? How can they be acceptable? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The British Government recognises the flags of England, Scotland and Wales as representative of those nations, in the case of Northern Ireland it don't, and only the Union Flag is recognised.--Padraig 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is fairly clear in that in the rare cases that a flag is used that it should be the flag of the sovereign state and not that of the subnation. If a flag is to be used, the guideline discourages the use of the English, Scottish, and Welsh flags (excluding when used in conjunction with their national sports teams, of course) and encourage the use of the British flag.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that some editors are removing subnational flags from List of British flags. Clearly the guideline cannot be used to remove flags from an article which is supposed to show and describe all the flags used in that country? Astrotrain 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if that flag belongs in that article or not, but citing this guideline as an argument that the flag should be removed from an article about flags is ridiculous. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is ridiculous!  And yet we have this edit citing this guideline.  Andrwsc 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I saw that edit before. How do we stop morons editors from abusing this guideline. Garion96 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same way that we stop editors that misinterpret any other guideline. Tell them they are misapplying it and if that doesn't work, float it further up the dispute resolution process. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment The flag Wasn't removed it is in the Historical Flags section, Astrotrain edited the page and put it into the current National flags section, that is what I reverted, it is not a National flag.--Padraig 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Astrotrain nobody is or has removed any flags from this article the Ulster Banner is shown in the Historical flag section which is linked in the text Historical flags, which is correct as the UB is not a current national flag and is historical since 1972.--Padraig 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer that narrow question, the answer is "yes" and "no". If I go and add the flag of Botswana to the article in question, then of course MOSFLAG's recommendation that flags not be used where they do not apply would be useful (not that anyone would bother citing MOSFLAG in removing something that out of place).  But just read the document. There isn't anything in it that says anything about removing flag images from articles about the flags themselves.  Whether a particular flag belongs in that article is a matter of editorial consensus building at that article.  Concur with above comments that if someone is misusing this guideline, they should be handled like any other problem edits.  And as noted in this case, it's not even a deletion but a move from one section to another.  Just not a Manual of Style issue, but an editorial consensus one over there. I'm marking this entire thread "Resolved" because everything in it that can legitimately be addressed here has been, and the rest is off-topic.  I'd suggest that any further issues that are relevant here (e.g. the wording of the guideline or its applicability) be raised in separate and more narrowly constructed topics so it doesn't just turn into another "let's argue about Northern Ireland here too" thread. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The List of British flags currently states for Northern Ireland:
Flag	Date	Use                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	Description                                                                                                                            	Status
    	    	Northern Ireland does not currently have a de jure National flaghttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70118w0002.htm other than the Union Flag - the former Government of Northern Ireland banner, the Ulster Banner, is still in use by international sporting organisations, (eg FIFA FIFA- Northern Ireland, UEFA UEFA- Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth Games Commonwealth Games- Northern Ireland) and can be seen in the Historical flags section.	A red cross on a white field with a red hand, on a six pointed white star, crowned (representing the six counties in Northern Ireland).	The Ulster Banner ceased to officially exist with the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which dissolved the Parliament of Northern Ireland, Not recognised by the British government or the Northern Ireland Assembly
Now to me, this is wrong:
* It shows the UK Flag image only, but discusses both the UB and Union Flag in the context of Northern Ireland
* It gives a description of the UB but does not show the corresponding image (and contradicts the image shown)
* The final column also discusses the image but again it is not shown
Is there anywhere on this guideline that states a flag cannot be used in an article about flags? Astrotrain 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have a mediation talk page to discuss the proper use of the Ulster banner?  This guideline does not define what the appropriate use of controversial flags are, just that they should not be used when it is inappropriate.  It is up to the editors of the page to determine the appropriate use of the flag in an article about the flags of the UK. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Astrotrain nobody is or has removed any flags from this article the Ulster Banner is shown in the Historical flag section which is linked in the text Historical flags, which is correct as the UB is not a current national flag and is historical since 1972.--Padraig 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer that narrow question, the answer is "yes" and "no". If I go and add the flag of Botswana to the article in question, then of course MOSFLAG's recommendation that flags not be used where they do not apply would be useful (not that anyone would bother citing MOSFLAG in removing something that out of place).  But just read the document. There isn't anything in it that says anything about removing flag images from articles about the flags themselves.  Whether a particular flag belongs in that article is a matter of editorial consensus building at that article.  Concur with above comments that if someone is misusing this guideline, they should be handled like any other problem edits.  And as noted in this case, it's not even a deletion but a move from one section to another.  Just not a Manual of Style issue, but an editorial consensus one over there. I'm marking this entire thread "Resolved" because everything in it that can legitimately be addressed here has been, and the rest is off-topic.  I'd suggest that any further issues that are relevant here (e.g. the wording of the guideline or its applicability) be raised in separate and more narrowly constructed topics so it doesn't just turn into another "let's argue about Northern Ireland here too" thread. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Look at Wolf Prize in Chemistry.  Is this an acceptable use under WP:FLAG?  I'm not sure if a list is considered inline text or more akin to the recommended tabular usage, but either way, it makes my eyes hurt. Thoughts? --lquilter 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuk! The problem is that having two flags on one line looks like inline text even if technically it isn't. It looks messy and cluttered. It would look better with a separate 'nationality' column. See Jury Prize (Cannes Film Festival) for an example; see the 2007 films on that list for a tidier rendering of multiple flags. Cop 663 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the ugliness factor, the use of flags in conjunction with those that have been awarded the prize seems at odds with the Wolf Prize's precept of awarding the prize without regard to the recipient's nationality.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and agreed (i.e., use table, not list, and Wolf Prize a bad bet for flagicons). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable use? 

message: On Talk:Interstate 196 there is a dispute over whether  or  is preferable. Please contribute. --NE2 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Highways are not flags. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FLAG is not only about flags. --NE2 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be.  In either case, I don't see what the big deal is between those two versions.  The table sub-heading is hardly "in the middle of text" (at least, no more so than the icons appearing on the table rows), so I don't think that the "Not for use in general article prose" guideline is truly applicable.  My €0.02 anyway.  Andrwsc 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't be, and since day one it was never intended to be. I am pretty sure that language to the effect of "flags and similar images" was added in my first or second draft, on the premise that similar issues would arise with coats of arms (on which highway "shields" are based), logos, official seals, and the like, and language of one sort or another about this has been in there since April or May.  We all know that Rschen7754 is dead set against anything outside of the road WikiProjects having any effect at all on what those projects choose to do with regard to highway signage in WP articles, but this is not a realistic position, and is not even one maintained by other major contributors to the topical guideline being created by that cadre of editors. That said, I otherwise concur with Andrwsc; table headings are not general article prose.  I don't like the look of it all that much, but WP:MOSFLAG really doesn't have other than general applicability with regard to it - are the icons adding something useful for the reader, or simply decorative? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Highway signs in the middle of text

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

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

message: I would be grateful if others could review the debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Flag icons and see if they have a view. --John 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite a bit of reading, but I recommend it. I've already thought of about a dozen ways to clarify the guideline. But I've left it alone for now. I've taken almost a two-month break from even looking at this document much less arguing and editing on it. Now I'm involved (above) in a debate about how to handle the political dimension of its wording, so I don't think it would be appropriate to make edits in that direction, even if they are not directly related to the Northern Ireland issue.  Anyway, outbreaks like this one are precisely what we should be looking at - this is how MOSFLAG applies in the "real wikiworld", and its failures to do so adequately in its "version 1.0" state are quite instructive as to where we need to go with it next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag-related thread 

message: A discussion has been opened on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Flag icons are being added to and deleted from infobox fields showing place of birth, place of death, and other fields. Please feel free to contribute at the linked talk page section.  Kablammo 15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline cannot possibly be any clearer on this: Do not use flagicons for birth/death places, as they improperly imply a nationality/citizenship.  This ought to be utterly, blindingly obvious to people working on military articles, since literally millions of war casualties are on foreign soil!  Like, "duh!" — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of flag icons in infoboxes for military biographies 

message: I am looking for more input in a disucssion located at Template_talk:Navbox#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_.28flags.29. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Flibirigit 08:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen a large number of navboxes that have a single flag icon in the title bar, and I personally have no problem with that, although I can also respect the counter-argument that it isn't really necessary because it serves no functional purpose but is purely decorative.  In my opinion, the use of this MOS page as rationale for removal of that single flag icon is something I was afraid would happen — using this guideline as a "free ticket" for widespread flag removal when the editor's personal reason for removal is more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrwsc 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rationale for using it is that most English people would not recognize the foreign languages, but would more like associate with the flag. Flibirigit 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it depends on the situation. The Manual of Style suggests that flags should not be a substitute for a picture of the subject within an article's body. Whether that should be extended to templates is debatable, but the general rule of trying to illustrate the subject of the template, not just its nationality, might be helpful. For example, in Template:England topics it seems pretty harmless to have the England flag, since it represents England. But in the 'Malaysia Supercorridor' example at Template:Navbox, this seems to refer to a place in Malaysia, not to Malaysia itself, so the flag seems less useful than a picture or symbol of the actual place. I'm not sure about British hockey - maybe some little hockey stick with a British flag on it, so that you're saying 'hockey' as well as 'British'?! See Template:Britishfilmlist for an equivalent example. Cop 663 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely agree with that (as the principal author of the "not a substitute" material to begin with, I can attest that Cop 663's view of its scope is accurate, as to its written intent; it can be clarified if necessary, if the consensus view as to what it should mean has shifted). I think a hockey-stick-and-flag icon would be appropriate in that example, though not required.  They aren't hard to make, either (see for example the Canadian soccer image I made, near bottom of User:SMcCandlish/Gallery; that took about 5 minutes). Not a big deal, really.  An English hockey template would only be on a hockey article to begin with, so adding a hockey stick to the image wouldn't be particularly informative in most circumstances for most users; the sole exception might be someone who got to an article with that template from some kind of Sport in England overview article?  Meh.  Not worth dithering about, really.  Agree that the Malaysia Supercorridor template would not need a Malaysia flag, but can't see that it does any harm either.  This page's "decoration allergy" is a bit excessive.  There is nothing wrong with images being used to make something look better, to an extent.  The navbox issue is really the cases where a navbox's title bar is bracketed by redundant copies of flag icons, like " US Presidential Election 2008 " (to totally invent an example). I have seen this several, but not numerous, times and reduced cases like that to (to continue with the hypothetical example) " US Presidential Election 2008" when I find them, though I often feel no icon would be better. For me, it is better to clean up the overuse of the icons and not get reverted, than to insist than any/all use there would necessarily be misuse and get revert-warred for days or weeks over the matter.  Incremental improvement is better than no improvement, and compromise positions generally result in consensus more often and more quickly than extreme ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this isn't a very serious issue, although in the Malaysia Supercorridor template the Malayasian flag is certainly harmless, but another image would be more appropriate (e.g. since the place in question appears to have its own logo, so it would be more logical to use that...). Cop 663 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically, using the logo would be considered decoration, and against fair use of logos. Flibirigit (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Many election navboxes are created from Template:National elections, and are forced to put a flag icon in the title bar.  I think it's worthwhile to bring up a discussion there for their removal.  Andrwsc (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That template just needs simple conditional code such that if no flag= parameter is explicitly specified, it skips the flagicon code entirely, and further to not duplicate the flag in later sections unless one is explicitly specified for that section. With this option in place, esp. if the template doc said not to put a flag unless there's a consensus that doing so would be useful in a particular case, fewer editors would do so, and many of them could be removed with little or no complaint. PS: The issue of the navbox "forcing" editors to put a flag is that by including the flagicon template without a parameter, it shows the default "Earth" image.  The flag and flagicon templates should also be fixed to stop doing this; if no country (or whatever) is specified, they should simply display a transparent image of the same dimensions (this will allow the template to be used to preserve spacing in tables and such.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  I made none the default parameter for the calls to  within Template:National elections instead of putting in some unnecessary complicating conditional code. Note that Template:Country data none is a special "no-op" template that renders nothing (i.e. output of  is between here →←).   I also changed Template:Country data to show a better image than that globe, so if any of the flag templates is called with no parameter at all, you see a more appropriate error indicator (i.e. output of  is ).  Andrwsc (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why output a "?" pseudoflag instead of a transparent image the same size? Is there at least an option to do that? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The options available for template writers are , which renders nothing, or Template:noflag, which is often used to include flagless entries in lists that otherwise have flag icons, and the text is intended to be aligned.  The output of  is intentionally set to the question mark because it is an error indicator.  The flag templates should not be called with zero parameters.  Using :Image:Sin bandera.svg helps editors see there is a problem so they can deal with it.  If a template writer wants to call flagicon with a parameter that can sometimes be absent, then the default should be explicitly set to none, as in my edits to Template:National elections.  I do not want to lose the "error indicator" behaviour of a faulty call to flagicon by making the error silent.  Andrwsc (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Is there any particular reason to use  vs.  or vice versa?  I understand what you mean about the error indicator. I actually want to document this in WP:MOSFLAG, briefly, since it is a style guideline and should talk about styling of flags and tables using flags, as well as whether to use a flag or not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they do different things.   is used to render text (usu. a wikilink) for a flagless item in a list of otherwise "flagged" items.  For example, look at the infobox of Tampa, Florida.  Flag icons are attached to the country and state names, but not for the county name.  Template:Noflag is used to align the three text items by placing a space of precisely the right size before the county name.   or , on the other hand, render nothing at all, not even a padded space.  They would not be used directly as written, but are useful when  or  are used within another template, and the country/state/etc. name is a parameter to that top-level template.  none can be used as the default parameter to pass to the flag template if no flag is desired in a particular invocation.  Template:National elections is a good example.  In the example on that template's documentation page, flag = Denmark is used to cause the template to draw that flag in the title bar.  If the flag parameter is missing, or flag = none is used, then no flag icon is drawn.  Hope this helps, Andrwsc (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of flags in election navboxes

message: We now have the situation where a swastika is displayed on the same line as the name of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, an opponent of the Nazi regime who was incarcerated in a concentration camp. Talk:Nobel_Peace_Prize#RFC:_Country_data_in_Nobel_lists_closing_comments What message does this convey, "at a glance", or otherwise?  Kablammo 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I commented there, but I think there's one issue that isn't entirely touched in the guidelines with respect to flag icons and tables. The use of flag icons in tables is for quick identification, especially with repeated entries as per WP:FLAG#Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used. To have the same country name with a different flag attached to it depending on the date of the entry completely defeats the "visual aid" justification for using the flag icons in tables in the first place.--Boffob 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be something about this in the MOS but it got deleted ages back, unadvisedly in my opinion. In situations like these you have to decide whether you're prepared to sacrifice historical accuracy for usability. Historically accurate flags are less useful as visual navigational aids. So we need to say in the MOS that the choice may boil down to (1) Make all the flags those of the modern country and sacrifice historical accuracy or (2) get rid of the flags. The decision should be up to the consensus of the editors working on the page methinks. Cop 663 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually no consensus on this point, however.  For example, the Olympics WikiProject has long insisted on using the historically accurate flags (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.) of the events in their time periods.  Their rationale is pretty solid if you ask me, and the "just use the modern flag" idea simply isn't workable across the board, because it assumes that national entities don't change, only flags do.  Obviously not true (i.e. Soviet Union, Yugoslavia again).  Some MOSFLAG major editors have favored a "then just don't use flags" position, but I don't see any evidence that it has gained much traction even here, and even if it had that doesn't mean there is a WP-wide consensus on the issue, esp. since projects like the Olympics one predate this page by years, have many members and are quite productive.  Their consensus to use flags, and use historical ones, is quite considerable.  While I (for one) do think that this guideline is properly prescriptive to an extent, it cannot simply ignore current practice, per WP:POLICY which makes it clear that guidelines largely exist to record practice, not to make up a new and allegedly better practice.  All of the MOS walks a fine line in this regardit has to be prescriptive to an extent (because "actual practice" would otherwise be "whatever random style I happen to think of this time"). We should not cross that line but keep walking along it. It's a balancing act. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of military history and sporting events, these historical flags were extensively used as a symbol of the country. There is a rationale to use historical flags there, because flags are an integral part of the events. In most other articles, historical flags are usually not so helpful, and often bring confusion or controversy. I got involved in the guideline discussions precisely because of misuse of historical flag icons (a Canadian Red Ensign for a birth place/date, next to the words Montreal, Quebec, with no Canada in sight, I thought it was an Ontario flag put there as vandalism). Birth and death flag icons in infoboxes were (and may still be) pretty common, and, just like trivia sections, the guidelines sometimes have to go against "common practice" because what works in most cases in common practice often has pretty glaring, problematic exceptions. The swastika outside of WWII related articles is probably the biggest example.--Boffob (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the difference between the military/sporting examples and the Nobel Prize Winners example is that the Nobel Prize one shows flags from across an entire century, whereas something like Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics covers just 1 year. It's perfectly fine to have 1936 flags in the latter, because once you've figured out which flag means 'Germany' or 'Italy', you can see the recurrences easily. But in the Nobel Prize example, you've got multiple different flags for the same country. That's when they become useless as a navigational tool. Cop 663 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The swastika (again) 

message: Is this a good example? Aren't military bases foreign soil, or is that only embassies? TJ Spyke 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean bases of one country in another, depends on the arrangments between the countries, as I understand it; i.e. a blanket statement would probably not work.  In any case, a large number of US military brats born abroad (like my sister) are not born on-base. Dunno about Willis. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Willis example 

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

message: This one gave me pause, after all the debate we have had here about flags, accuracy, etc. They had the modern flags of the US and UK, for a subject who died in the late 18th century! If anything could serve as a good example of how flag use can mislead, this type of usage is surely it. --John (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington example has been raised a number of time above and the if the flags where not removed and readded they should of been removed Gnevin (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Care to comment? 

message: I'm asking you to review the policy on using flags in the "senior clubs" sections of footballers' infoboxes. I know that many users tend to overuse flags, but in such cases flags are often essential. I propose using 15px flags instead of typical flagicons, I've tried viewing such infoboxes with IE, Firefox and Opera. Works just fine with every browser. It's especially important when we're speaking about less notable players from "smaller" clubs, where it's difficult to say whether a certain player has played abroad or not and if he did, what league did he play in. That's the reason why all the major websites, providing players' stats, use such flags. See: Playerhistory, Soccerassociation and National Football Teams.
I'll use an Estonian player as an exaple:
*version 1 - very difficult to establish player's notability at a glance, especially if you've never heared of Kuressaare, Zirka and Sodovik before.
*version 2 - Limited use of flags makes the whole thing more illustrative and informative.
At the same time, I think there is no point in using flags in the "National team" section, by putting them next to country names. Thanks for your time people BanRay 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this type of flag usage, as it is verifiable (although there are always problematic questions like which flags to use for Cardiff City F.C. or Berwick Rangers F.C.). Unlike many infobox uses, this one actually adds utility. I agree with making them slightly smaller too, so as not to be visually overwhelming. --John (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it is useful, but the only problem is that the reader is expected to recognise the flags of Estonia, Latvia, etc. on sight. Few English readers can do that. So you need to find a way of adding the country name at least once (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Accompany flags with country names), either with a key at the top, or by including the country name after the club name. Cop 663 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you coming from Cop, but adding country names would stretch the whole thing, same with division numbers (such info would've been useful, but no chance we can fit all that stuff there). Some people may not be able to recognize flags of Estonia and Latvia (although football fans tend to know flags very well and, I think, would be able to recognize the vast majority of the countries with pro/semipro leagues at least), but then there are people who have never heared of such states as Estonia and Latvia. After all, if you can't recognize some particular flag, you can simply click on the club's name or on the flag itself, it's still easier than clicking on every club on the list. BanRay 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but if you have to click on something to learn what it means, it defeats the 'utility' argument. If you're interested in utility, the most useful thing is to ditch the flag and put the country name in brackets afterwards (and if it won't fit in the infobox, well make the infobox wider - there is tons of blank space between 'Years' and 'Club' that is being wasted at the moment). Don't get me wrong, I believe the flags are useful as an 'at a glance' visual aid, but only if the country name is given as well - especially since flags that look similar are even harder to distinguish when shrunk down to 15px. Cop 663 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course some particular flags might be difficult to recognize, but I don't think "it defeats the utility argument" altogether. After all, you won't have to click on every single club, trying to understand where it comes from, since, most of the flags, especially flags of countries with professional or semi-professional leagues, are very well recognizable. Don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything against using country names if someone finds a way we can squeeze them in, but as for now a mere permission to use 15px flags would be an improvement. BanRay 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other point to note here is that by using  (with size=15px), you get the alt attribute set, so most browsers will display "Flag of Estonia" when the mouse hovers over the icon.  This is not as clear as the country name being shown as text in the infobox, but it is better than nothing...  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point, that actually makes country names unnecessary or at least not essential. BanRay 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I do like the flags, but if we're going to allow these with country names, we have to rewrite the relevant section of the MoS. And I do think this is a sensible rule... do people know you can get the country name by waving the mouse over flags? I didn't. And it seems odd to make an exception for Estonia and Latvia of all places! But maybe I'm the only person who thinks this. Cop 663 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Estonia and Latvia? The Estonian player was just a random example, I'm speaking about infoboxes in general. Anyway, I get your point, thanks for the opinion Cop. BanRay 15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I agree. The fact that a player's club is from a certain country doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If it must be mentioned, it should be mentioned in the main body of text, not in the infobox, and therefore not as a flagicon. – PeeJay 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I agree with Peanut and PeaJay. They are simply unnecessary and should be removed from articles about players entirely in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, that Internet Explorer again, why do you people even use that crap browser (although I've tried it with IE7 and it looked just fine), but yeah, seeing the screenshot above, we probably shouldn't use them, although I don't think I'll be using infoboxes in my future articles, as I find them pretty useless in their current state. Having to click on every club trying to determine where and wich division it comes from, is nothing but pain in the back. I'll think of some new table/box that would be both more informative and useful to a reader. BanRay 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the infobox is only meant to be an overview - further information can be found in the prose of the article, or through links. Most lists of a player's career in other media take the simple years-club-apps/goals form. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IE6 before Sp1 dose have problems for the flags. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Senior Clubs" section in footballers' infoboxes