Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

WP:INFOBOXFLAG question[edit]

I have a question about the INFOBOXFLAG policy. The policy earlier states:

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text... (emphasis mine)

However, two paragraphs down, the policy states:

Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes...

This seems totally contradictory to me. So, which is it? – Should INFOBOXFLAGs generally be avoided? (Which is how I generally read the policy, outside of a few of the exceptions listed...) Or are flags OK to use with cities and such?

If not so much in the latter case, then I'd advise rewording the last paragraph (to at least make it clearer in what exceptional cases INFOBOXFLAGs are OK to use with towns and cities, etc.)... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand it to mean that they shouldn't be used next to country names in the infobox of any article that isn't about a human settlement, and then, only for the country and top-level admin. div. (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It's still contradictory. I really want a clarification as to whether cities are meant to be exempted from the first two paragraphs, and if so why. As it is, a number of city articles (e.g. Berlin, Paris, London) use no FLAGICONS in their Infoboxes. But this is contradicted by articles on U.S. cities, for example, which do use them (but in a totally unnecessary way, IMO). I'm really unclear as to why FLAGICONS are OK with city articles (and then used inconsistently), but almost nowhere else... --IJBall (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that it's been inconsistent since one part was changed to allow flagicons in infoboxes in certain conditions. If in doubt, I think we should avoid them. bobrayner (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand it to be an exception. It's contradictory insofar any exception is contradictory. Basically, it means you may use flag icons in this case here, disregarding all of the above. Notice "may". It's up to consensus, which is why you might find them in some city articles, but not others. Of course, this is only my interpretation; others might be more adept at "parsing" wiki guidelines.
If in doubt, I think we should avoid them. It doesn't make much sense to keep an exception we're just not gonna follow 'cause we're in doubt about it. (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any problems with a rule having exceptions. Any attempt to make the MOS guideline cover every possible situaton is bound to fail. In this case, the general rule is that flags should be avoided in infoboxes. The exception is that "(h)uman geographic articles ... may have flags". The only problem is how to decide when the exception goes to work, and the obvious answer is the golden rule of Wikipedia: When there is a consensus.
I can see cases where the use of flag icons in the infobox adds clarity and helps readability. During a discussion about how to present the (disputed) location of certain places in Northern Cyprus, I started to remove flags from the infobox per MOSFLAG. I found, however, that in this case it was possible to organize the info in a clearer way with the help of flags, so I reverted myself, also per MOSFLAG. The consensus that was reached, included flags. I see no problems with that.
There are probably many places where infobox flags do not serve any purpose, and should be removed (U.S. cities have been mentioned). That will in my opinion have to be discussed for that specific group of places, in order to create a consensus. If the consensus for one area is not identical to the consensus for another, so be it. There may be differences that no guideline can foresee. --T*U (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My question is really a broader one in regards to the policy in this instance – why do cities (i.e. "human geographic article(s)") get this special "carve out" from the overall MOS:FLAGICON rule?! I totally understand the exceptions covered in paragraphs #3 & #4 of the rule (I find those sensible and logical). But I don't understand this "human geographic article(s)" exception – When was it instituted? And why? Because that exception, in particular, seems to violate the spirit and intent of the first two paragraphs of the MOS:FLAGICON rule. --IJBall (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I find the reasoning provided for this part of the guideline to be a whole lot of incoherent nonsense. When do flags not "convey information in addition to the text"? There's no real explanation for why they're permitted in military and competition infoboxes, either. Indeed, it seems to be little more than a report on widespread usage, i.e. where using flag icons wasn't deemed to be too unprofessional or nonsensical. (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@IJBall: I do not know how the human geography exception came about, but I would guess the reason for it is just what I indicated above: There may be situations when flags are useful to present infobox data in a better way then without the flags. Also, people may have experienced that cast-iron rules never covers every possibility. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I'm against the over-use of flag icons as much as the next guy, but I believe there are appropriate uses, too, including where the icon signals some representational status of the article subject, such as military units and personnel, members of national sports teams, political bodies, etc. So, let me state the obvious, because I get the sense that some editors are unable to see the forest because of the weeds: states (or provinces), cities, and counties (or parishes) are political subdivisions which almost always have a separate government. In the United States, Australia and Canada, all states and provinces have separate state or provincial flags, and in the United States and Canada, many if not most counties have their own flags, too. Obviously, the four nations of the United Kingdom each have their own flags. Major cities throughout the Anglosphere also have their own municipal flags (e.g., Chicago, Edinburgh, London, New York, Toronto), and so do many smaller cities. These flags exist, and they represent their political subdivision, and in that regard they are no different than national flags throughout the world.

So, what is an appropriate use of city, state or provincial flags? Clearly, they should be prominently used in the infobox for the article about a particular city, county, state or province; that's a no-brainer, and most articles do. What is clearly overkill is using city, county, state, provincial, or national flags in tables that include event locations -- an egregious example of this I recently purged was the use of national flags in tables for swimming world records. In addition to a national flag for the sporting nationality of each record-setting swimmer, the table creators also included the national flag for the event location where the record was set. This is an example of inappropriate over-use of flags. When a city or state is included as the location for an event in table or infobox, we should not include flag icons next to the name(s) of the event location. Another example I purged a couple years back were state/provincial and national flags for the locations of major dinosaur fossil sites throughout the world -- that someone thought this appropriate boggled my mind. I can provide more examples, but I think everyone should get the idea. It's appropriate to use flag icons in articles about the political subdivisions of cities, counties, states and provinces and their governments, but we don't need the flags as symbols of the mere geographic locations. It is neither necessary nor desirable to include an Arizona state flag and/or the U.S. flag in the infobox for the Grand Canyon article. Some common sense is required. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And, again I ask: why? – why this exemption? Why, in the infobox for, say, Los Angeles, is it better to have " California" and " United States" vs. just "California" and "United States"? (Note: We're not talking about an Infobox 'image_flag' parameter here, where the use of a flag icon or image isn't just appropriate, but expected...) Again, how is the former not "unnecessarily distracting and give[ing] undue prominence to one field among many"? How does the former "add [any] informational value" over the latter? To me, this exemption for city infobox seems totally arbitrary, and basically operates against the whole purpose of the MOS:FLAGICON. Again, I get where the use of flag icons actually adds informational value and is completely appropriate (an example of this, IMO, can be found at Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) where the use of flags in the infobox actually helps readers understand the various factions involved...). But leaving the exemption for city articles to use flag icons for 'nation' and 'state', etc. Infobox parameters seems to pretty much gut MOS:FLAGICON IMO (operating against its very own purpose and spirit, as it does, and not seeming to be an example of "appropriate" use of flag icons), and if we're going to leave the city exemption in, I wonder if MOS:FLAGICON should just be done away with... --IJBall (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To be crystal clear, IJBall, I think it is entirely appropriate to include the city flag of Los Angeles in the infobox for the Los Angeles article (again, that's a no-brainer). Whether we include the state flag of California and U.S. national flag in the same infobox for the Los Angeles article is a subject of legitimate debate. I think flag icons work best where there are relatively few of them, such as a single national flag in the infobox for an athlete who has represented his country at the Olympics as a member of his country's national team. Where there is a hodge podge of flags, the reader is overwhelmed, and the infobox or table becomes a dog's breakfast of random colors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You also have to understand that wikipedia is run by consensus, not guidelines. At any given time for any given guideline a group may vote a certain way, thereby legitimizing an icon or terminology. The next year it may change again. If 99% of editors in an RfC say the sun is blue, even though we know and sources show it's yellow-orange, then wikipedia will say it's blue. If 100% of English sources spell a guys name as "Fred" yet in a Congo newspaper he spells it "Freddd", then all it takes is votes to make sure the his spelling of "Fred" is banned from wikipedia. We are vote driven. Also guidelines can't be the end-all determination for everything wikipedia. There are simply an endless amount of topics that have different real-life parameters. That's why we have wikiprojects to help fine tune what is truly important to their subject. IMHO the Los Angeles flag should 100% be in the Los Angeles infobox... the US and California flags should not. Do they bother me there, no. They neither look ugly nor attractive... they just are there. I'm guessing that wiki project feels it's important that all that series of flags is shown at least once in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you both. I think I was confusing some people with what I said earlier, but I think we all in agreement. No one is talking about not having the flag for a city, state, province, or nation, etc. in that article's infobox (though, again, I don't consider that a "{{Flag}} icon", which is what I was talking about, but more of a "flag image" (i.e. from a image "File", rather than from the {{Flag}} icon template)). What I was taking about is having "state" or "nation" flagicons in addition at to the city's flag at the city articles. The original discussion here came about because of the use of nation flagicons in the Infobox at the Louroujina (city) article (or, as I saw later, the use of the same flagicons in many U.S. city articles). From what you both are saying, those should not be in the Infoboxes, according to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
So, to conclude, I think the last paragraph of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG documentation should probably be made clearer – what it's meant to be talking about is that the "City of Los Angeles Flag" (i.e. it's image (file)) should be in the Infobox for Los Angeles, but that there's no reason for the flagicons of, say, California and the United States to be in there. So that needs to be clarified. --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Not quite; this was debated awhile back. Los Angeles has no legal existence without California or the United States; as a creature of higher level domains, having a flag of those is proper (not mandatory - again depending on consensus at the article, especially if the territory is contested). Non-human geography such as Mt Everest has existed before nation states and well after them - hence no flag should be used in the infobox. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think he understood that it was because higher level domains dictate on wikipedia, that for cities, flag icons are present for city, county, state and country. He was asking why that particular reasoning should warrant a flag and not many many other situations. It has nothing to do with being "proper." You'll find no sourcing that says that at all in the real world. It isn't a question of proper, it is simply that a group of editors decided that arrangement is what will be used and if ever challenged more agree than disagree. That's the way wikipedia works and it's what we were trying to convey to him. He did mistakenly take my own view on the situation as one of consensus... I should make clear it was my own view that those extra icons are not needed. But if the geography project has determined that it's better that County, State and Country icons are also in the infobox along with the city, well... that's what that project is there for. MOS can't cover every contingency so Projects help with conformity and specific issues of narrow scope. Anther thing to make clear is that in his original query he was talking "policy".... this is not policy, it's a "guideline." Guidelines will always have exceptions and guidelines also tells us to use common sense in applying them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The bigger problem, to my mind, is not only is this geography policy counter to the INFOBOXFLAG guideline here, but that it seems to be inconsistently enforced – in other words, either every city article should follow the geography policy, or none of them should. Because, right now, the U.S. city articles, and some others, have all of these flag icons for all of these "political divisions", but other city articles (and, in my quick perusal, I noticed London, Paris, and Berlin as examples) did not use all these flagicon for country or state or county. But I'll keep an eye out for this – should the geography Infobox flagicon policy ever come up for a vote again, I'll be a "No" vote on keeping the current policy. --IJBall (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If you find any MOS policy that is consistently employed (enforced seems to imply some enforcers), please let the entire community know. My experience is that virtually every policy, guideline, MOS, etc. is inconsistently employed because (a) people don't know, (b) anyone can edit and everyone can cleanup, but cleaning up is no fun, (c) some people just disagree with rules and bend them or break them, (d) no reason whatsoever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty anarchic. The most influential factor in usage is often the whims of the original editor. I think there is a strong consensus on using flags when they directly describe the subject or the topic is a representative of the flagged body. I don't see a strong argued consensus for flag usage in merely locational matters, though there is plenty of such usage across the article base. SFB 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal to revise MOS:INFOBOXFLAG[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

This is a courtesy notice that there is a draft proposal to revise portions of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG guideline. The draft proposal (and any accompanying discussion) can be found at the Village pump proposals page. Please feel free to add comments or suggestions there. Thank you. --IJBall (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it.[edit]

The discussion that took place several months ago was only a discussion about Formula One articles. For some reason User:Fyunck(click) has interpreted this to mean that All athletes are exempt, as long as they have competed in international competitions, when in reality the scope of the discussion was Formula One. Most likely Fyunck(click) is using the closing admins own words, which were strange to say the least. Nowhere in the previous discussion was there anything that would lead me to believe that every athlete is included in this so-called exemption. --JOJ Hutton 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No we also talked other sports and specifically tennis when coming to a decision. It was absolutely to apply to both those sports and others in general. Sure I chose the closing admins words so as not to be ridiculed for using my own words... that certainly didn't work. And it's not "Every Athlete" per the closers own words. Only those who, like Olympians, play in international events and where player nationality can be sourced as being quite important. So not MLB or NFL... but Tennis, F1, or Olympics. That's what it morphed into, that's what it was closed as. Read the closers info at this link. It's pretty darned plain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The poll question was, and I quote, "This section is not for debate or discussion, but simply stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles." Nothing in the poll question that discusses any tennis or any other sport. The fact that tennis was discussed by a few editors does not mean that it was part of the poll or part of the consensus. The guideline wording MUST adhere to the perceived scope of the question and the discussion, and should not be expanded simply because a few people had mentioned tennis. And as far as wording goes, where was baseball discussed in the discussion, because your preferred wording of the guideline now includes baseball, soccer, basketball, polo, surfing, table tennis, chess, and just about any sporting event that two people or teams from different countries compete against one another. Its a very ludicrous to hypothesis that since some people discussed tennis, despite the scope of the discussion being mostly about F1, we must include every conceivable sport on earth.--JOJ Hutton 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Your reading of it is completely different then the discussion that went on, and the conclusion of the closer. If you think it could be worded slightly better I'm all for that. I never claimed to be a world-class writer. The consensus close was for athletes competing in international events and I thought it best to stick with the closer's words instead of summarizing it myself. If you could word it better yet keep the consensus close intact, give it a go. But those athletes are specifically allowed flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are reading it either. You used the phrase, Tennis was talked about extensively, on my talk page, yet by my count, tennis was only mentioned 21 times during the entire discussion by 4 times by you, in two comments, 5 times by Tvx1 in two comments, and 8 times by Dirtlawyer1 in several comments. Thats 17 mentions by three editors and that only leaves 4 mentions by other editors for and against the inclusion of tennis in the scope. Again by my count 22 people "voted" in the poll, but only 6 people mentioned tennis. That is not extensive and that is not evidence that it was to be included in the scope of the consensus.--JOJ Hutton 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And it was a runaway. The closer didn't just count votes (that's a wiki no-no). He looked at all the conversation, all the back and forth before coming to a conclusion. The poll was just one part of things. I think there was less participation for a discussion on the banning of sourced English spellings vs home county spellings, banning won by the way, yet that is the defacto rule of law at wikipedia without it even being in MOS. But if the village pump starts to talk of changes to MOS/ICONS it is best they realize we already have consensus on some things right here at the MOS talk page. This wasn't hidden in some darkened out of the way talk page. We reached consensus right here. Whether it's located in MOS/ICONS or linked as a consensus decision, it is what we use now at the various wikiprojects as consensus. But I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I could care less if a closer counted votes or not. Whats important is that Tennis was not part of the scope of the discussion, nor was it extensively discussed at all. In fact the closing admin said explicitly "There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.", yet you changed that to state, "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.". I'm sorry but that is a big difference from what the closing admin said, and what you wrote. In fact the closing admin seems to simply be restating what the guideline already says in the second paragraph of MOS:FLAG, "Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games.". So basically my two new questions are, why would you reword the closing admins words to give it a new meaning, and why does the MOS need to say it twice?--JOJ Hutton 02:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: this RFC ran concurrent with the Formula 1 discussion and has been archived. Tewapack (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be infobox specific, as most editors would agree that the MOS clearly allows them to be used in lists and tables to represent nationality.--JOJ Hutton 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
MOS doesn't make any such blanket statement about infixes, and many of the cases where it says to never use flag icons are specifically infobox uses, e.g. to indicating birthplace of biographical subjects, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Just because Tennis was mentioned, it does not mean it was a party to the outcome. The discussion was defined as being specific to Formula One and could possibly be extended to motorsport generally. A discussion about Tennis should be taking care of seperately, as apart from anything, I am not sure the Tennis Wikiproject was adequately informed this discussion was taking place. --Falcadore (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they were properly informed and participated in both discussions. Tennis Project by consensus and guidelines has always interpreted MOS to allow flags in infoboxes and tables, and obviously F1 felt the same. It is done for all players. I can't fathom how some could really think these lopsided discussions weren't applying to all sports, but they certainly applied to Tennis and F1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, possibly because the discussion was defined as referring specifically to Formula One right out of the box. Perhaps you could point to the point of the discussion where it said "the discussion now applies to all sports". --Falcadore (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons. Mojoworker (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Although the conversation started narrowly, I think the outcome in regard to F1 has some clear parallels with tennis (omnipresence of national symbols to represent drivers, despite being a non-national competition), which was also discussed. Certainly I can't imagine a stance which allows one but not the other. SFB 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Images in navigational box titles[edit]

please comment in this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Can someone explain to me why we have this guideline?

Ok, I'm aware of the various prior discussions, and the recent closure/archiving on some discussions. But, there are so many exceptions to this guideline that are not noted anywhere, ambivalently applied, knee-jerk reverted, and general vagueness the guideline isn't a guideline. It's empty fluff that has no meaning. And I haven't even gotten to the various problems with wording within the guideline and related guidance all over the place.

I dare say no one can come up with an argument why we allow flag icons for tennis players, but don't allow them for plenty of other athletes who compete internationally and represent their country. Usain Bolt anyone? Michael Jordan anyone? Oh wait, maybe they're not important enough. How about Pelé? No?

Barring some strong argument that we should retain this guideline (other than that it'll generate an argument), I think it needs to be abolished. Please don't tell me it will result in too many flags in infoboxes. We already have tons of examples where infoboxes are overflowing with flag icons. A guideline that isn't enforceable isn't a guideline at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually both Usain Bolt and Michael Jordan have the flags... they are just down lower. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fyunck; yes, but only in their competitor boxes. In plenty of other articles (ex: Missy Franklin) the flags exist in both places. Dare to remove it from the higher location, and you will be instantly reverted...even though there's no exception written into the guideline for swimmers (yet another of those unwritten rules). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there are currently too many flags in infoboxes, but removing provisions against that will certainly not improve the situation. If there are "unwritten" exceptions, they should either be discarded or codified. This guideline should be amended, but not abolished. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Amended to what? More confusion? There's so many exceptions to this guideline it is useless. Nobody can follow it all. I've followed this guideline for years, thought I knew it, and once again ran into even more exceptions. It's absurd on the face of it. Nobody can properly enforce the guideline because nobody knows all the exceptions to it. If it's unenforceable, it's no guideline at all. I'm curious about the genesis of this guideline, and if no centralized discussion occurred prior to its inclusion I may just WP:IAR and gut it, forcing an RfC to include it...which would never pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, I quite agree that there are so many exceptions that the quideline is useless. Even in the same projects, such as WP:MILHIST, flags are explicitly excluded from Template:Infobox weapon, but are regularly used in several military unit and organizational infoboxes. IIRC, one of the main original objections to flag icons was that text reading software had difficulty with the icons, and there may have been some other technical objections too. But now there are so many infoboxes with flags, that if there were still major technical issues with the flag icons, we ought to be seeing fallout from it, but we apparently don't. For that reason, I don't think the original technical issues are still a problem, if they ever really were one. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is curious. The section was initially added in December of 2010 [1]. It appears it was controversial from the get go [2]. The base discussion involved just _six_ editors. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 8#Are we totally eliminating the flags entirely now.3F. No centralized discussion. Now, there was a later RfC that ran six months afterwards. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 8#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes. Rather hysterically, it essentially codified the vagueness of the guideline, requiring it to state that the use of flags in infoboxes is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not (see #3). Well, I'm glad we cleared that up <rolls eyes>. This just further reinforces my point; this is no guideline at all. And worse, there was no centralized discussion to put it in place in the first place. It should be removed. The only reason it isn't being removed right now is because it's been in there for years, and despite many controversies over it it has remained in there. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • P.S. One of the comments at that RfC noted the use of flags in the infobox at Napoleonic Wars was quite helpful. See, there's well over 100 flag icons used in that infobox. World War II killed more than ten times the number that the Napoleonic Wars did...and it gets a lowly 7 flags. Boy am I glad I'm not confused about who lead who in the Napoleonic Wars <faceplam>. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – As there seems to be no interest in making a coherent guideline (see: here), INFOBOXFLAG should instead be abolished. Note, however, this will have a cascading effect on other guidelines such as WP:ICONDECORATION. But if there's no interest in making a coherent policy here, that outcome is unavoidable. --IJBall (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought we were just discussing removing that one section. I oppose changes to the rest of the guideline, which has longstanding consensus and a rationale: icons should serve a purpose other than prettiness. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If I understand Hammersoft's proposal correctly, he is saying that the current WP:INFOBOXFLAG guideline has so many exceptions that it is rendered nigh on meaningless, and that it should just instead be abolished. My definite preference would be to just basically "nuke" its last paragraph (paragraph #5), as it's that paragraph that renders the guideline pretty much useless; but there was no consensus for that proposal. In light of that, I agree with Hammersoft – if the community isn't interested in fixing the guideline, then it needs to be abolished. --IJBall (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)