Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 1

message: The subsection Use historical flags correctly in contexts where the difference matters states that a current flag should be used if the country has not changed.  That is, we should use the USSR flag instead of the present-day Russian flag, but we should not use the Canadian red ensign instead of the current maple leaf flag, even for pre-1965 sporting events.
However, in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, our consensus has been to use the correct flag at the time of each Games in results for those Games.  Our rationale is that flags are quite an important element of symbolism at the Olympic Games, as they are obviously used for medal ceremonies, for the athlete's march at the opening ceremonies, etc.  Therefore, using the specific flags that were used at the time helps our articles match what you see in photographs found in official reports, for example.  I want to see this essay reflect the consensus we already have, but I don't want to change this essay yet before some discussion and understanding on this talk page first.  Thanks, Andrwsc 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; wasn't aware of that Oly. discussion.  Don't fear changing it.  I changed WP:BOLD-style virtually everything about this piece, because it was all way off-kilter.  I have no illusions that the result is magically perfect! However, I don't think these points are really the same.  Using the then-current flag for lists of sports stats isn't the same (as the document points out in many other ways) as using flags in infoboxes on biographies, esp. given that we are vehemently deprecating the use of flag icons as birth/death "chiclets", and instead recommending use (if at all) solely in the nationality line. I don't think it'll be a huge debate.  I have other stuff to do tonight, so I'm unlikely to address any of this in detail until tomorrow. A note to the "defenders" - don't worry about deletions and reverts and stuff; this thing is practically brand new and will need a lot of brains on it before it is ready for prime time. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are absolutely right; current flags should absolutely not be used for historical occasions under a different flag. This is one of the recurring problems with flag usage. This essay was recently entirely re-written and I don't think everyone has read through it all, so don't take it as gospel. I have removed that paragraph. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the paragraph because these ideas are under discussion and we can't discuss them if they magically disappear. The point about the Olympics and symbolism may be a good one, but the general principle of favouring recognizability over obsessive vexillology (sp?) may still be worth keeping (with caveats).Cop 633 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is false and misleading. Whatever event did not in fact take place under the listed flag in such case. A given flag would not have even existed at the older date. Accuracy always trumps whatever aesthetic concerns you are emphasizing, and using incorrect flags is a misuse of flags. —Centrx→talk • 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points, Centrx, though I think you may've removed stuff that doesn't actually fall under your objection (or conceivably could under one interpretation but wasn't meant to be interpreted that way and simply needs a re-phrasing. No dig beal.  I'll see what I can do with it, by way of a re-rewrite tomorrow, rather than engaging in any reversions. In particular, I don't want to see the point lost that for general usage, the current flag should be used.  For example picture a list of countries and their economic data of some sort, and each country's entry in the table was a flag icon followed by the country name which linked to, I dunno, a "Gross national product of (Countryname) by year" article.  In this table (assuming there was consensus at that article that flag icons should be used at all) the flag icon that should be used is the current one of Canada, even if the GNP article linked to went from the present year back to years before the flag was in use. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Need another day to get back to you on this stuff; got sidetracked by other things. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 09:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, you should be aware that there is a page history associated with each page on Wikipedia, so the section in question can be referenced easily by . —Centrx→talk • 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For Olympic articles, "obsessive vexillology" is a non-issue.  Several months ago I re-wrote and extended the functionality of :Template:FlagIOC and added some additional related templates (:Template:FlagIOCmedalist, :Template:FlagIOCathlete, :Template:FlagIOCteam, etc.)  The result is that editors need only supply parameters to specify the nation's IOC country code (e.g. "ITA") and a string to identify a specific Games (e.g. "1912 Summer") and the templates will automatically choose the correct flag for that year and create a wikilink to a per-Games article for the nation.  For example,  renders . Take a look at an article like Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's decathlon to see how these templates are used to easily create results pages with correct historical flags, with minimum effort by the editor.  Andrwsc 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 09:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So nazi flag is used for 1938 Olympics, so it logicaly follows that we can use it on all germans born from 1933 to 1945, yes? (Gnevin 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the current draft says right this minute, but it at least did say that flagicons should not be used in association with birth place and date at all.  I think it raises an interesting question with regard to the |Nationality= line in many infoboxes.  Would it be appropriate to use it for Heinrich Himmler?  It's questions like this that are leaning me a little more toward the "don't use them for infobox nationality at all" position. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of historical flags in sports articles 

message: This is where run away flags has lead  . Surely this is an incorrect usage of flags (Gnevin 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, those flags are indicating which state a basball player is from. If that is considered important enough to mention in the article as opposed to letting the reader click the link to look at the article on the player (probably not, IMO), then have a column headed "state of origin" and link to the state name, rather than using flags. If uniformity of presentation is a problem, then use state abbreviations, but link to the state articles. eg. Using United States postal abbreviations you get CA for California. Carcharoth 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also inserted a better link above. Hope that is OK. Carcharoth 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, both with the edit and with the point that you make. --Guinnog 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  They are rather extraneous to that particular page.  I think that state flags might only be appropriate for articles like the Little League World Series, where US teams are also identified by their home state.  Using flags to identify individual players is overkill.  Another similar example would be the use of Canadian province flags for tournaments like the Tim Hortons Brier.  Each team represents their home province, so the use of flags in that context is appropriate.  Andrwsc 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at that page some more, I think the state origin is only (possibly) needed there because it is some potted "best of" team for the whole USA, so the state of origin might be of interest to the reader. If the state name were given in full, then the link would not be used. Currently, the link is to explain the state abbreviations. Possibly a standard template for US state abbreviations exists on Wikipedia, similar to the ones for country abbreviations, but I haven't found anything yet. Carcharoth 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in this particular instance, the players' home states are irrelevant; what would seem more appropriate here would be images of their respective team logos. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since those are always fair use images, that would go against Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would certainly be an appropriate non-free fair use, but it’s unclear whether or not such would actually be contrary to WP:NONFREE, a very contentious guideline that seems to change daily.  Since they would be identifying players at a glance, according to their team, it would seem to me to be permissible ... but who can tell?  If things keep on going the way they are, it seems likely that the No-Fair-Use Police will eventually get us to the point where the only image we can use anymore is the Wikipedia logo ... and no doubt they’ll be eyeing that one too!  :(  Askari Mark (Talk) 03:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sub national flags 

message: I've adding a bot to archiveythis page discussions older than 7 days, if you dont agree say so here (Gnevin 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic update 

message: I am aware of WP:VOTE but i would  like to do a straw poll to see who agrees that due to the very unclear nature of flags (see all above).
Flags should not be used for people infoboxs at all (Gnevin 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *comment I realize this is straying off topic a bit, but I would prefer to see your code fragment as |national-team=.  Same result, much simpler! Andrwsc 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Side-topic reply comment: Good point; I'd forgotten that templatesemantics fact entirely; we do indeed have the more expansive , vs. +verbiage, for a reason. Good call. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *reply comment — I think that was precisely my point.  Instead of trying to establish a really broad policy with one stroke, why not start with some simple, concrete instances that we may be able to get consensus on, and build upon that list?  That's why I suggest starting with something like "no flags for birth/death locations".  Very unambiguous, and way more likely to get consensus than something bigger.  Andrwsc 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply But why not take the final step and say  no flags for birth/death locations or nationalities  ? (Gnevin 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reply comment — I think the or nationalities part is not completely unambiguous now.  I think we need a statement that says |nationality= should be avoided in most instances, or re-phrased as "competed for:" etc. in the instances where it does make sense.  We need to get consensus on the "allowable exceptions" first before deprecating all usage.  Andrwsc 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply The trouble is i can see any list which wouldn't be full of contradictions but if you fancy taking a stab at it i'll help (Gnevin 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply comment You know, I was agreeing with a limited use of flags in infoboxes until I saw infoboxes of statisticians like C.R. Rao (though in these infoboxes I also don't see the point of listing nationality and residences). I'd rather have a uniform "no flags at all" rule than guidelines such as "mostly no flag + not-so-clearly-defined long list of exceptions".--Boffob 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: * I disagree in principle with the wording of the poll as a major overgeneralization. More substantive comments under "Comment" section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: *Neutral — I don't think the poll question is the right one to ask.  I think there are several instances for certain kinds of infoboxes where flag icons make sense.  I think a better policy would be something like Do not use flag icons to represent the country of birth and/or death in biographical articles.  Andrwsc 23:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *comment I realize this is straying off topic a bit, but I would prefer to see your code fragment as |national-team=.  Same result, much simpler! Andrwsc 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Side-topic reply comment: Good point; I'd forgotten that templatesemantics fact entirely; we do indeed have the more expansive , vs. +verbiage, for a reason. Good call. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *reply comment — I think that was precisely my point.  Instead of trying to establish a really broad policy with one stroke, why not start with some simple, concrete instances that we may be able to get consensus on, and build upon that list?  That's why I suggest starting with something like "no flags for birth/death locations".  Very unambiguous, and way more likely to get consensus than something bigger.  Andrwsc 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply But why not take the final step and say  no flags for birth/death locations or nationalities  ? (Gnevin 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reply comment — I think the or nationalities part is not completely unambiguous now.  I think we need a statement that says |nationality= should be avoided in most instances, or re-phrased as "competed for:" etc. in the instances where it does make sense.  We need to get consensus on the "allowable exceptions" first before deprecating all usage.  Andrwsc 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply The trouble is i can see any list which wouldn't be full of contradictions but if you fancy taking a stab at it i'll help (Gnevin 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply comment You know, I was agreeing with a limited use of flags in infoboxes until I saw infoboxes of statisticians like C.R. Rao (though in these infoboxes I also don't see the point of listing nationality and residences). I'd rather have a uniform "no flags at all" rule than guidelines such as "mostly no flag + not-so-clearly-defined long list of exceptions".--Boffob 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I'm interested in some opinions on the table at List of Arsenal F.C. players.  At a minimum, I'd prefer to see the FIFA country code (wikilinked to the article for the nation), but I'm interested in other feedback.  Andrwsc 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good example of why words are better than flags. It must be inconvenient to those who can't recognise country flags. I like flags and was doing fine until I got to , which was too obscure even for me! Of course, if one clicks on the flag, one can quickly learn what it means, but it seems an unecessary inconvenience. Surely there is enough space in the table for the country names? Cop 633 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just as side note , one of the problems i find when i click of a flag is say for someone didnt know what the UK was , to find a link to UK is nearly impossible it's down the end of a page with 100's of links. Flags images should have under the image The flag of United Kingdom (Gnevin 17:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, using the standard  and  templates will result in the "alternate text" showing "Flag of United Kingdom" etc.  Most browsers show this when you mouse-over the icon image.  Andrwsc 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's why I proposed the next edit, using FIFA country codes next to the flags, but that got reverted a few hours later anyway.  Andrwsc 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the FIFA codes isn't very popular, and which is more informative to the average reader in the obscure cases –  or "CMR"? I'd think that here either the flag-with-name or just country name approach works best. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "CMR" was wikilinked to Cameroon, and I assert that is more useful than just a flag by itself.  I agree that a full name is preferable, so I would prefer to see  (rendering as ) in the table cells.  My edit to use country codes was because I thought the reason the full name was excluded in the first place was because the original editor felt the table was space-constrained.  Using a country code is better than nothing in those instances.  For example, look at the tables near the end of 2007 World Rally Championship season.  These tables are constrained horizontally, so using a flag icon with a country code (properly wikilinked) seems like a good solution to me.  Andrwsc 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless someone has removed it, the draft guideline already strongly deprecates using these icons without a country name or abbreviation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons without any text 

message: This paragraph is not very clear, but it appears to mean that the default is to use current flags unless there is some positive reason to use the historical flag. What is the justification for this? In what situation should a current flag be used instead of the correct historical flag? —Centrx→talk • 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example it gives is in situations where the form of government and leadership does not change, just the flag. Also from the example is the Canadian change from the Red Ensign to the Maple Leaf. Nothing really changed in relation to Canada except a desire to have a flag that is indicative of the Canadian national identity instead of its historical ties as a colony of the UK. Basically, the same debate that has been going through Australia recently. Another reason (at least for the Canadian flag) may be that the Canadian Red Ensign is not that well known outside of Canada and the small size that the flag will be displayed in articles in Wikipedia will make it easily confusable with the existing Flag of Manitoba and Flag of Ontario. Not to mention the historically concurrent Newfoundland Red Ensign.  Granted, the confusion factor doesn't prevent the usage of New Zealand's and Australia's flags in articles.  The most potent reason for using the current flag is that the flag is supposed to be a visual representation of the country it represents and unless there is a historically significant reason to use that flag.  Should the US 48 star flag be used for anything that happened between 1912 and 1959 or the US 50 star flag. The addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states isn't really that historically important in relations to sports or the birth of most historically important Americans born in that time period, so there really isn't a compelling reason to use the 48 star flag over the 50 star flag. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument about confusion would apply to us editorially changing any flag to whatever we wanted; change the French flag to a picture of the Eiffel Tower so more people will recognize it. The country the flag represents is the country at the time of the date the flag is used on. Yes, the 48-star flag should be used between 1912 and 1959, and I don't see any reason to use a flag that did not exist at the time of the date. If a country's flag changes are we just going to change every single use of it Wikipedia despite there being no actual change in the facts of the article? —Centrx→talk • 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As a more literal example of what I'm talking about, there has been periodic edit wars and discussions over whether Stephen Harper should have the Red Ensign or the Maple leaf next to his place of birth.  Harper was born in 1959, six years before the Maple Leaf was made Canada's national flag. What is the historical significance of him being born under the Red Ensign? Especially when you consider everything Harper's done that's historically significant has been done under the Maple Leaf.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the flag is used at all, then it must be in some way significant. If the flag is so unimportant that choosing a historically inaccurate one doesn't matter, then there shouldn't be a flag at all. I don't see a flag in that article now, but if it was on his birth place then there should be no flag there at all, which solves the problem. —Centrx→talk • 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is the entire point of this essay, the flag icon is not important. The only useful purpose of the flag icon is to make recognition of a country easier in a list of countries and the use of historical flags doesn't do that in most cases. If someone is going through a list of pre-1965 Olympians and looking for Canadians, chances are they are going to be looking for the Maple Leaf and not the Red Ensign. However, if they're going through the list looking for Russians in that time period, then they'll probably be looking for the Hammer and Sickle and not the Russian tri-color.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, flags do not help to recognize most countries. In most cases, flags are not recognizable, and in all cases the name of the country is superior. Flags are only useful in situations where there is not enough space to list the full name of the country, in which case, as with sports events, there is still a key or an effective key that has the country name alongside the flag. And if the U.S. team didn't carry a 50-star flag at the 1934 Olympics, then a 50-star flag is not warranted on the page about the 1934 Olympics. —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the name of the country is superior to just the flag, but when presented with a lengthy list of just country names, a flag icon used in combination with the name can be preferable to just the name. Or, at least, that's what I've seen batted around on this page and others on which the subject of flags has come up. Except in cases where the topic is about the flag itself, I've yet to see an instance where a flag icon was useful. However, other editors have said it's easier for them to scan through the list for the flag and then validate with the country's name that they've found the correct entry. If the only purpose of the flag icon is navigational, then the best one to use is the most recognizable, which in most cases is the current one, not the historical.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing about old American flags is that you can't tell how many stars are on them when reduced to icon size. So it doesn't make a difference whether it's the 1934 one or the current one. (That and there were no 1934 Olympics).--Boffob 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I think you're taking it far too literal, that was just an example. Let's say the 1948 summer Olympics and the country is Canada, so it's the Red Ensign vs the Maple Leaf. ;) Clear difference there.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Use historical flags only in contexts where the difference matters" 

message: Recently I've been trying to think of a good use of flags within articles (I mean, as opposed to illustrations of flags, as shown in articles such as this). I can't come up with anything at all. What am I missing? -- Hoary 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not missing common sense and the ability to read instead of looking at pretty pictures. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good use of flags?

message: The thing that I find most annoying is the way flags distract me when I am trying to read something. That is my most basic problem with flag icons. This is in the guideline as "the use of flag icons in prose breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader", but I think it should be emphasised more. Even in infoboxes they can be distracting. Take a random example, such as Abraham Lincoln. The version at the time of writing has flags for Hardin County and Washington DC. When I'm scanning the infobox, the assimilation of information process goes something like:
*Name (know that already)
*Picture (ooh, looks nice)
*Title, dates, etc (yeah, yeah, not looking for that)
*Born (ah, here we are, let's look for birth date and place)
*(check, got his birth date)
*(flag)
*Hang on, double-check what I'm seeing here.
*(flag)
*No, look again.
*(flag)
*Aaagh. This stupid flag is distracting me.
*Place of birth (finally)
What started off as a relative harmless visual scan of text, was brought to a shuddering halt by an image that drew my attention away from the surrounding text. I don't mind this when the image is illustrative, like the pic of Abraham Lincoln, but when it is a small, sometimes unclear, icon, it is horribly distracting. Carcharoth 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, state/district flags... How many of those are recognized readily by the general population, at icon size? I have to agree, they definitely are distracting.--Boffob 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can get consensus to "prohibit" the use of flag icons for birth/death/nationality in people's infoboxes.  (I consider the "competed for X national team" usage different from "nationality" in this instance.)  I think it will be quite difficult to get consensus for all the guidelines proposed in this essay, so I think we should tackle them one at a time.  The birth/death infobox usage seems to be the best place to start.  Andrwsc 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Carcaroth, are you saying you actually read infoboxes? I try to tune them out (just as I tune out "Ads from Goooooogle" and so on), and I usually succeed. The problem with flags is that their colorfulness makes it a bit harder to tune out the stupid infoboxes, they decrease the signal/noise ratio, and they add a little bit to the bytage. -- Hoary 13:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity of reading 

message: I figured I'd like to create a stub template for rave-related articles for WikiProject Rave of which I'm a participant. I figure I could either create a new icon image from an existing free image (such as the image already being used in the project bannet) or find a free icon somewhere. This page states that it wants to provide external links to free icon collections (among other things). At random I clicked my way to the Iconaholic site finding no statement there that those icons were indeed freely licenced, however, I did notice the usual copyright notice at the bottom of the front page. So I just wondered if I could in fact use something that I found on that site, or if that would in fact be a waste of time? Second question would be, if I decide to make the above-mentioned image into an icon, do I just install an icon editor and then convert that image? __meco 10:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding or creating an icon

message: Since some discussions about turning this page into a guideline have sparked, I propose to move or create a new page at Wikipedia:Flags or Wikipedia:Flag icons. It's a better title for a policy than the current essay-like title. CG 13:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good idea. —Centrx→talk • 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Flag usage maybe.  The other two titles better fit a howto article.  (SEWilco 04:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. --John 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with SEWilco on all counts, and with CG and John on the general idea that present title needs to change. I will prophesy, however, that the ultimate name for this will be Wikipedia:Manual of style (flags) (WP:MOSFLAG).  That was certainly my goal in writing most of it.  There isn't a lot of point to having a manual of style and non-MOS style manuals; they get integrated into the MOS for a reason. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move 

message: What is the position with regard to using flags (often with no official status, but seen as de facto flags) of a county, state, or constituent country?
If a template is one of a series of identical templates for different states/counties/const.countries/, all the others of which have flags, surely that template too should have a flag? 
The article says that this is acceptable, but only for sporting templates. Surely it should be extended to any non-political or biographical article or template? The position is quite unclear. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give an example of what you mean? Cop 663 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Template:Northern Ireland cities has no flag, whereas the corresponding templates for the other nations of the United Kingdom have their respective flags.  Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation on the N. Ireland cities template is exactly why flags are not necessary.  On that template the use of any flag (Ulster, Union Jack, or otherwise) is a source of conflict that is easily avoided by not included a flag at all. Having the flag on the template does not make a positive contribution to the content of the template, so why even have it?  Even if you expand the issue beyond Northern Ireland to the use of other flags on biographical articles, there is conflicts over which flag should be used in infoboxes. Should Stephen Harper have the flag he was born under, the flag his country has had for all but 6 years of his life, or the flag his province has had for most of his life. All in all, including a flag in an article or template generally does not add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article it is in and is frequently the source of conflict, so it's best to avoid it completely. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. N.Ir. bio articles should not have a flag until such time as the UK finally gets around to assigning it a new official one (or reinstating the Ulster Banner).  In the case of Stephen Harper, he should have the flag of his current (or, should he die, that of his final) citizenship.  The draft guideline already says this pretty explicitly, unless someone removed that (I've been busy and not monitoring this essay on a daily basis).  Bio infoboxes have a "nationality" line, not a "statiality" or "proviciality" line, so state and province flags (or UK county flags, Albanian district flags, etc., etc.) are a moot question.  Lastly, many do in fact feel that flag icons add encyclopedic value.  That is why this essay/draft guideline exists, instead of a prohibition on use of flags and flag icons, and mass TfD of the flag icon templates.  I.e. the "does this have any encyclopedic value" question appears to already be a long-decided consensus issue. The questions that are actually before us here are "when does a flag (especially a flag icon) have encyclopedic value, when is it just noise, and when is it outright disruptive?"  These are what this document addresses. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the essay has changed since I last read it.;) The Biographical use section seems to have been added since I last read it in depth. Unfortunately, the use described in that section is generally not the use that flags are being used for in infoboxes. In the case of the Stephen Harper article and all other biographical article that I've seen flags used in the infobox, the use has not been to identify nationality, but to flag the article's birth place. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a common problem.  A possible solution might be updating the (many) bio infobox templates' documentation to better explain the "|nationality=" fields that most of them support. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer the original question, if the flag is not official, it should not be used. To do so would effectively be a form of original research and certainly POV-pushing. As an example, Israel is recognized by the United Nations as a nation; despite the fact that the bulk of the Muslim nations consider Israel an illegitimately occupied terrority, it would be POV to exclude the Israel flag from Israeli articles.  By contrast, both Quebec and Brittany have strong nationalist movements, with long-established de facto flags.  I would be POV pushing to use these flags on biographies of people from these regions of Canada and France (respectively).  It would also be POV pushing to use them on the articles about those regions, as representing the region, though of course discussion and display of the flag in an article section about nationalism in those areas, identifying the flag as that of the nationalists, would be entirely appropriate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about one of a series of templates about regions of a country? Presumably there has to be consistency? If all but one of the templates used the de facto flag of that region, they all should? Perhaps none of them should have a flag, or they should all have the flag of the country the regions are part of? I don't feel this is addressed by the draft guidelines. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was an uncntroversial defacto flag, then probably no-one would notice or care. But Northern Ireland doesn't have an uncontroversial de facto flag. So it doesn't have a flag. Its 'flag' is an empty flagpole. So it's perfectly consistent for the infoboxes in qauestion to have no flag, even though the Englsnd, Scotland and Wales ones do. It's a silly situation, but it's not Wikipedia's job to solve it, we just have to reflect the situation. Cop 663 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps more to the point, WP:NPOV is a policy. There is no policy that similar template must be 100% consistent with each other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of flags of states or constituent countries on templates. 

message: Could someone please tell me what's wrong with the Gianluca Zambrotta userbox? It's helpful, noncontroversial and stylish. It should be used as an example of when flags should be used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqduck (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree.  I think the only place in that infobox that should have a flag, and ironically enough is one of the few lines that doesn't have one, is before the national team wikilink.  Andrwsc 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly have to agree to disagree, as it were, with Mqduck.  I.e, Andrwsc is completely correct that the national team line should have a flag, while most of the others should not.  I am not, however, in the camp (yet?) that nationality lines should not have a flag, with a few odd exceptions like Northern Ireland.  Two months or so after this nascent guideline got rolling, I'm less in the camp that nationality lines should have flags (and that bio infoboxes should have nationality lines to begin with, which is a larger but perhaps more important issue), but still remain in that camp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flags, though, don't describe the nationality of the subject of the article. They descibe the teams played for. There should be no (political, etc.) controversy over the usage of flags to represent that. Unless there is an actual problem with the implication of the flags, it's my opinion that they should be allowed for their stylistic, etc. benifits. MQDuck 11:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really speak for Andrwsc, but I think his point (or at least the one that I would raise if I'd written what he did) is that the non-national teams don't need flags, because they are not national teams.  It isn't terribly informative to the reader to flag them, since what country the teams are in is of non-"defining" significance, unlike the national Italy team.  I wrote most of this potential WP guideline because I agree with you that the flags can add stylistic and other benefits, and I agree with others that their overuse, misuse and abuse (which are all different) not only self-defeat that purpose but can be directly misleading.  I remain neutral for now on the question of whether infoboxes with "Place of birth" lines should use flags there, when the flags are not in dispute (Northern Ireland, etc.), and the larger question of whether infoboxes should have "place of birth" lines, "nationality" lines, both, or neither (that is probably a question for both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Infoboxes to mutually come to a consensus on, and that consensus would help shape this projectpage, rather than the other way around.)  All that said, I don't strongly object to anything at the infobox in question, other than a flag being missing from the most appropriate place for one. :-)  PS: I don't think anyone is implying any political or other controversy over the use of flags int he Zambrotta infobox; it's more a question of relevance and decoratativeness for decorativeness's sake.  Wikipedia, in contrast to much of the web, is intentionally image-lean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've long found the Zambrotta example flawed. I find the use of flags, as shown in that version link, to be helpful. They tell me, at a glance, that he is an Italian player, currently playing in Spain, whose first three clubs were in Italy. Furthermore, the years next to the flags tell me that he spent 12 years in Italy, and has been playing in Spain for a year. This is all because, for sports, the situation is generally clear-cut. And where things are unclear, just quietly drop the flags. What I hate seeing is non-sportspeople being labelled with flags. Carcharoth 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gianluca Zambrotta 

message: Citing this essay, I tried to clean up this massive list by removing the inappropriate flag icons.  The most frequent editor of the article took great umbrage at my actions by reverting and railing against me on the talk page of this and a handful of similar articles.  Anybody care to take a look at those pages and tell me that I was out of line (or not) with my edits?  Does that list pass or fail the intent of this essay?  My explanation of why I removed the flags can be found on User talk:Ldemery.  Thanks, Andrwsc 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a essay it doesn't matter if your edits pass of fail ,its only an essay and can be ignored (Gnevin 12:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that does not mean that what the essay advises isn't sensible, nor that it fails to reflect growing consensus. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Right, but I'm looking for an opinion if my edits were "in the spirit" of this essay, or "out of bounds".  Andrwsc 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits where fine , the use of flags on that article is not helpful and the use of subnational flags it just pointless(Gnevin 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Gnevin, but also note that the flags there are not harmful or even particularly distracting; the worst that can be said for them is they are bandwidth-consumptive on a page of that length and with so many flags.  I've seen much worse use of flags, basically.  I think the majority opinion here, though, would be to delete them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of town tramway systems in Europe]] 

message: a discussion on flag use in infoboxes is going on at :Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. In short, it debates the reasonablity of tagging people born in pre-independence india with the colonial British ensign. I think there should be some sort of mention on this page on how to relate to flags of colonial dominions, as they are not really analogous to national flags (concretly, in the sense that people in India didn't really identity this particular version of the Union Jack as their flag). --Soman 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take would be that especially for infobox use, no flag should appear.  Using the modern flag of India would be inaccurate, and using the British flag, while accurate, would not be informative, and even be directly misleading, to the reader.  I concur that the draft guideline should directly address this, perhaps using citing this case as the canonical example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a couple of other examples that speak against flag icons in place of birth/death in infoboxes. Anne Frank died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany. Someone arguing for truth and accuracy could put a Nazi flag in her infobox, place of death. A victim of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (remember the massacre in the movie Gandhi?) would, if flag icons were allowed in infoboxes, have the British India flag placed next to both their place of birth and death. These are extreme examples, but the British India flag icon in Mahatama Gandhi's infobox (which I removed) is only a matter of degree removed from those two more extreme examples. Let's kill this turkey (flag icons next to place of birth/death) once and for all, please. ॐ Priyanath talk 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That turkey's long since been shot.  I think that one of the first things this essay advised was that flagicons should never appear next to birth/date places, because it can be terribly misleading as to nationality (many people are born and die abroad). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood that as long as this is just an essay, it's only 'advised'. I'd like to see this as an official policy. That's why I keep shooting - also because I've been removing flagicons left and right from places of birth and death in infoboxes. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patience.  It will never, ever be "official policy", because WP simply doesn't make policies on thing like this.  What we are aiming for is a guideline designation. See WP:POLICY for the difference. :-) And anyway, all that guidelines do is "advise" anyway, they just do so with more consensus buy-in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying - I'm not very familiar with this world. Guideline sounds like it would work just fine, along with some more patience..... ॐ Priyanath talk 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial India 

message: I have noticed that some editors have begun removing flags from various articles, and even sparking-off the odd revert war. It should be noted that this is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline yet, and given its apparent controversial nature it may never become either. Until there is a change in official policy, I would suggest, at the very least, a "non-combative" approach to flag removal. Build consensus on article talk pages before removing flags. -- Scjessey 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there needs to be consensus to keep material in articles. In the absence of a compelling encyclopedic reason for these, I'd say they can be removed on sight. Of course nobody should be revert-warring over something like this. I have removed many, often mentioning it in talk first, and I have never seen anyone present a coherent rationale for their retention, which is quite telling in itself. --John 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with John, in many cases there is a overuse of flagicons that add nothing to articles or templates.--padraig 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the people that remove flag icons and cite this essay, I can say that the reason I cite this essay is not because it is official guideline, but rather because it explains why I'm doing it better than I could in an edit summary. I generally just remove them, but if they are added back I'll pop onto the talk page, explain why I took the flag away, and ask for their explanation for keeping it. On the few cases where my removal has been contested, almost all resulted in the removal of the flag. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. Cop 663 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that flag icons were conceived for tables, charts, and infoboxes in order to indicate origin or nationality. I was moved to comment here because I noticed that flag icons were being removed from infoxboxes, which I thought was rather peculiar. I agree that these things must be used sparingly, but I am concerned that acts of removal without initial talk page discussion and consensus is causing anything from confusion to edit warring. Perhaps the "removalistas" should make it standard practice to explain a removal on a talk page (using a templated include, for example) to try to avoid any editing conflict - a proactive approach is better than a reactive approach, eh? -- Scjessey 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flag icons were conceived as a navigation aid for large tables, lists, etc. where every item has an associated nationality.  Many sport result pages benefit from them, for example.  Single flag icons by themselves do not offer any navigation aid, but are simply used for decorative purposes.   As for your suggestion of requesting permission to make these types of edits, I think there is no reason why these articles are not subject to be as "edited mercilessly" as any other Wikipedia article.  Andrwsc 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two problems with this: 1) Just because WP:WPFT initially created the flag icons as nav aids does not logically demonstrate that they have no other possible uses. 2) The position that a single flag icon by itself has no purpose but decoration is certainly questionable; I've explained why in more detail in a thread above, but the short version is that they provide an educational background point of interest to plenty of readers (I've noted paper encyclopedias and other offline works use small flag pictures in bios of people for the same sorts of reasons).  I do not think that the three or so "flag haters" :-) in this debate are ever going to get much traction on the "they just serve no purpose" argument.  Others think they do, and so there's simply no consensus for banning.  I think the purpose of this essay-to-be-guideline is to advise how/when/where to use them and not use them, and why, including in infoboxes, a usage that is already well-entrenched and highly, highly likely to remain so.  I think our job here is to steer editors away from excessive, confusing or misleading use of them (overuse, misuse and abuse, respectively, the terms I used in an earlier topic) in infoboxes.  Agree that no one needs "permission" to edit articles, but whoever it was that raised talk pages probably meant it is better to discuss a flagicon removal from an infobox either before or immediately after making that edit, simply to reduce strife and editwarring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been doing the same, with a similar edit summary to yours, specifically with flag icons next to places of birth and death in the infobox (see discussion above under 'Colonial India'). I've only had one person even ask 'why?' After explaining, they are now removing them from that very specific (mis)use, which is the worst, IMHO. So yes, a good edit summary explaining the reason is helpful and sufficient. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that some editors are removing national flags because they don't like them, or for other sinister reasons. Also some editors are quoting this essay as if it was already a policy. Astrotrain 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag your refering to is not a national flag, the Ulster Banner was never a national flag see: Northern Ireland flags issue.--padraig 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh! Please work that link into the essay text!  I think it presently only links to Flag of Northern Ireland which gives the facts but does not discuss the dispute about the flags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then all you need to do is tell them it it isn't a policy yet, and explain why the flag is so important to the article. Cop 663 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (Outdent, since this responds to several sub-topics at once:) If someone says "no, no, no, that's not a Guideline!", the proper reply is probably something along the lines of "the logic in WP:FLAGCRUFT is quite sound however, and you have not made a reasonable case for including (or removing as the case may be) this flag; we treat a great number of essays on Wikipedia as de facto guidelines." Add "and don't be a wikilawyer about this please", if they are being total jerks about the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag removals 

message: Any one else find it a bit of a contradiction to have a made up flag such as in  on the top of this page , isnt this what this article is all about stopping ? Gnevin 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So go fix it.  The UN flag would be a good choice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it myself, with several international organization flags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I find it more amusing that the banner states that it represents Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, yet appears on none of the hundreds of pages nominally under the scope of that WikiProject!  Andrwsc 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which pages do you mean?  If you mean the templates, most of them don't even have talk pages (last I looked) and there doesn't seem much point in creating a template talk page just to put a banner on it, but by all means feel free to run an AWB session or bot to fix that if it matters to you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page template

message: Talk:Fanta#Nazi flag --John 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion relevant to this 

message: I referred to this essay here. I may copy any discussion that occurs over here when it is done. --John 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's another that relates to this page 

message: I came across Volleyball World League Results today.  Hoo boy, anybody have any comments on that?  ;)  Andrwsc 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flags are fine there, because those are national teams. The problem there is that only flags have been used. What is needed are links to the article for the national teams that won the events. Lacking that, at least a bit of text giving the name of the country along with the flag is needed. I'll try and clean it up. Carcharoth 09:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had exactly the same idea, to at least show wikilinked country codes.  That's an improvement.  Andrwsc 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it. :-) National volleyball team articles would be better to link. Do they exist? Carcharoth 09:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the 2007 page, which uses those article links, very few of them currently exist, so it would be full of redlinks.  Andrwsc 09:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The only ones with articles should be in :Category:National volleyball teams. Might be worth doing something with at least the winner each year. I've done that, and added links to the other volleyball competitions. Carcharoth 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)The country codes were already being used, so I just replaced flagicon with flag. Please compare the old version and the new version. Is that better? Now it is clearer what the countries are, if you don't recognise the flags. Carcharoth 09:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too keen on the way the display breaks, when there is more than 2 flags in a box. Agathoclea 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine here. Can you describe the problem in more detail? How exectly does the box break? Can you post a screenshot? It may only be a problem for low-resolution screens. Carcharoth 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agathoclea 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue seems to be mostly the result of a lack of a non-break space between the flag and the country name.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a nbsp placed by the underlying flag formatting template used here, namely Template:Country flaglink, so the browser must be ignoring or over-riding it.  Andrwsc 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a window width issue.  If you do not have some monstrously-wide monitor, the table with flags+names is too wide to fit into the window, so something has to give. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is why a previous edit changed back to flagicons only, which brings us back to square one....  Andrwsc 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what I'm seeing now; it has flags and names again.  I'd suggest checking the source to make sure that nbsp's are not also between each country, and make sure that there is a space after the comma in ones with more than one flag. The problem could also be fixed with forced line breaks:  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new "poster child' for this essay? 

message: I thought of hiding flags via css, but am running into a little snag. see Template_talk:Flagicon#attempt_to_hide. for further links. Agathoclea 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding flags in css

message: Further to Andrwsc's comments above, here's some of what the project page says about biographical uses:
:Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity.
Indeed flags do. They may also imply nationalism or other allegiance, and the implication may be quite wrong. (An admittedly extreme example: should Jews, socialists, gypsies, and miscellaneous anti- or non-Nazis who survived in Germany for at least part of the Nazi era be besmirched with the swastika?)
There follows some sensible stuff about one Naomi Watts, and a pile of advice about which advice to use for simpler cases than Watts, all of which would be rendered irrelevant if we took Andrwsc's sensible advice above. (In short, there's no worry about which flag to use where there's no flag at all.) But this section of the project page perks up at the end:
:Use the flag and name of the country that the person was officially representing, regardless of true nationality, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics
which again seems very reasonable. It's also clearcut: We may not be entirely sure of somebody's nationality or nationalities or (quasi-) national allegiance(s), but we do know which team he or she was in at any one time. -- Hoary 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges.  You can't conflate two completely different uses of flagicons and say one is right, one is wrong.  It's like saying that a claw hammer is only for driving nails, and that pulling nails is verboten. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's me who's doing the conflating here. Instead, it's the project page. You and I seem to agree that there are two very different uses. You like them both. I disagree with the one and understand that there can be benefit from the other. If you like that metaphor: I'm saying that the claw hammer is for doing things with nails, but not for emphasizing conversational points when sitting around a table. -- Hoary 07:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they have more than two uses.  I don't think we can practicably have a Wikipedia:Flags in general, Wikipedia:Flagicons in infoboxes, Wikipedia:Flagicons in lists and tables, etc. I don't see that using flagicons in infoboxes in ways that a broad consensus agrees is okay is akin to using a hammer for intimidation. <fzzt spark pop> DOES NOT COMPUTE! <BANG! Clatter...> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality: A bit of a red herring?

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
:See Wikipedia:Requested moves#27 August 2007 for the WP:RM entry.
I've proposed this move, from Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags to Wikipedia:Flags, though Wikipedia:Flag use in articles or something else equally neutral would work fine, because I think that the debate has become dominated by louder but fewer-in-number anti-flagicon editors, and some more balance is needed.  I fear that this would eventually lead to the essay becoming more and more negative toward the images, against more widespread general (de facto) consensus, and rapidly generate a counter-essay from the other "camp" and would in fact entrench people into camps, with no consenus ever likely to become possible.  I think this essay is really good and very close to guideline-worthy but too negatively named (and in a few places too negatively worded, but that's more easily fixed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Some other reasonable possibilities include Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles and Wikipedia:Flags in articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *It actually does attempt to address flags used as regular images, but either more work needs to be done in that area, or the existing attempts to address non-iconic flag usage need to be stripped out.  I prefer the former, as ignoring non-iconic flag usage leaves a massive "loophole" for things like abuse of the Ulster Banner, among others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I kind of lean in that direction myself after some thought, despite having proposed the shorter name in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *See my comment above to Andrwsc: The essay is attempting to address more than iconic use, and either needs to do that better or not at all (I fear that not doing it at all will simply require a new Wikipedia:Use of non-iconic flags in articles down the road. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well then, it looks like a straight choice between Wikipedia:Flag use in articles and Wikipedia:Use of flags in articles. Flip a coin, I guess one is as good as the other. :) PC78 01:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *That would still make it a guideline. :-)  Anyway, I think in the archive it is actually already suggested that our guideline path would in fact be to become an MoS page.  We're not really at that point yet, but strongly agree that it is really the only sensible course of action when we do get there, and part of my rationale for the rename: There are not MoS pages in the "Don't..." form. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
There were no objections in general to moving this page, and few strong opinions about which of the several alternatives should be chosen. If only to avoid any possible ambiguity with "flag" as a verb, I have plumped for "Use of flags..." — I hope this is acceptable to all concerned. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move