Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

Icon guideline prohibits the portal template?

A recent change to this added the underlined text to:

"purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout in long lists or tables. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader."

I reverted, objecting that this change would outlaw {{portal}} (see example usage at right), which normally contains a purely decorative image that provides a useful visual cue, but my revert was reverted with the comment "the next sentence addresses usage in templates/portals". Sorry, but this guideline can't seriously be saying that {{portal}} (used in 2,500,000 pages) and similar templates are bad style. What's going on here? Eubulides (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin replied at my talk page as follows:

"Just an FYI, template portal is on the main-space but not considered part of the main-space. That is it conveys wiki community or project information that is not encyclopaedic such at {{fact}} , {{stub}} ,{{unreferenced}} and as such MOSICON doesn't apply Gnevin (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)"

Sorry, I don't understand this comment. First, it seems to be claiming that uses of {{portal}} in articles are exempt from the Manual of Style, but I don't see any basis for this exemption in the manual. Second, we're not talking merely about {{portal}}; there are countless other uses of purely decorative images that this wording would disallow, for no apparent reason. For example, {{Hong Kong}} is not a portal, and it uses Image:Hong Kong SAR Regional Emblem.svg in a purely decorative way, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why is there an attempt to prohibit this usage? Eubulides (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This guideline deals with the encyclopaedic usage of icons, I've made a minor change to the intro to reflect that this is the current consensus. Portals etc are community or project content and so fall outside the scope of this guideline . I would argue that the Hong Kong emblem should go as it stands, if you change it to link to emblems of Hong Kong or something then it should stay Gnevin (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously thinking the portal templates are at risk because of this. On the other hand, the MOS version support by Gnevin does avoid potential (non-portal) problems and vagueness. And it reflects current consensus usage. --Merbabu (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, nobody in this thread has explained the need for a change, with a specific example of why it's needed. I've given specific examples of why the change is harmful. Please explain why the change is needed. Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The change just makes it clear that argument that icons are useful navigation tools only applies to area where navigation actually takes place such as long lists and tables . The two examples you provide have not been affected by this change, non main-space was always outside the scope of the MOS and the Hong Kong template's usage of the icon is purely decorative and provide no navigation aid and is also not affected by this change Gnevin (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Hong Kong example is not in a long list or table. So it therefore doesn't satisfy the newly-added (underlined) part of the guideline that says "purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout in long lists or tables". The Hong Kong example is a purely decorative icon that provides a useful visual cue, but it's not in a long list or a long table. Therefore, the change appears to be prohibiting common practice. Conversely, no example has been given of usage that this new wording prohibits, and should prohibit. Can you please give a specific example of that? I still frankly don't understand the point of the change: all the effects I see for the change are harmful. Eubulides (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

THe hong kong example is always collapsed and would require users to know that the logo is,it neither provides visual cues or layouts. It's purely decoration and really should go. The wording allows the likes of the flag usage Six Nations Championship and prohibits at least in my opinion Navy_seals#See_also Gnevin (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the idea is actually to prohibit the Hong Kong template's image? If so, this is a fairly drastic proposal: it would prohibit lots and lots and lots of templates. Is that really intended? Also, I don't see why the proposed wording would ban Navy_seals #See_also but allow Six Nations Championship: the infobox at the start of 'Six Nations Championship contains far fewer flags than the list in Navy_seals #See_also. Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MOSICON has always at least in my interpretation discouraged the Hong Kong type of image. I mean when I open that template I see this red and white logo, it gives no alt text,has no thumb nail text, I can't click it. All I can do is look at it an be confused and wonder to myself what is this, also what is the relevance of the seal to Districts of Hong Kong? Very little .In the Navy seals the countries appear once so there is no need to scan , while in the six nations that argument has been made that you can scan for France or who ever by looking for their flag. Gnevin (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I made a bold change attempting to at least partially deal with the issue. Although to be honest I think this section already depreciated the use in the Navy Seals article. I don't have an opinion on templates, but I don't think there is consensus to depreciate image use in them. WFCforLife (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I like your change ,I've changed visual to navigational Gnevin (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like it too; thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag in BBC article?

Flag-related discussion at Talk:BBC. --John (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Old nationalist flags in firearms articles

I'd like to draw readers' attention to a controversial flag-related debate at WP:Firearms that does not appear to be getting the attention it deserves. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Routes/Highways

Icons in these pages e.g. List of highways numbered 117 seem excessive. Any thoughts? Staecker (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They only reason I could think of keeping them is the navigation argument however I don't think the navigation argument applies here as they require a knowledge of 50 states roads sign plus others and a lot of them are so visually similar that a quick scan isn't possible. They should go Gnevin (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the icons are not helpful in that list. Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The icons help with identification; therefore, they should stay. --Rschen7754 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the icons help with identification. In the my home state of Michigan, we use duplicate numbers. I-94 and M-94, US 8 and M-8. While they are often in different areas of the state, the route markers do denote the difference visually in addition to the way the names are abbreviated. Additionally, on most highway guide signs, the markers are used without supplemental text names. In the future, I'd suggest that when editors propose changes like this, they notify affected WikiProjects, in this case WP:HWY or its subprojects like WP:CRWP and WP:USRD. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So as someone from Michigan you know Michigan's signs just as I know Ireland's but most people don't know Ireland's or Michigan's signs . These don't help the vast majority of readers in anyway and as above they don't help people navigate as they are too similar Gnevin (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. The designs of the road markers in the US are as ubiquitous as meaningful here as the color schemes used on the signage in other locations to denote the difference between roadway classifications in other countries. The graphics are an aid to navigation and identification in the list articles, almost as integral as the names. In some cases more so because in many states of the US, all highways are called "Highway X" or "Route X" regardless of actual name, but the classifications are intuitively understood from the design of the sign. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point . The point is you can't quickly scan these icons because they look so similar and as such offer no quick navigation argument. Even if they where weren't so similar it would require knowledge of 1000's of different types of sign which no one has Gnevin (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just about every American can tell the difference between an Interstate shield, a US Route shield, and a shield that's not either of those. --Rschen7754 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And what about the rest of us non Americans? And the point is not that Americans can't tell the difference the point is that they are so similar that you can't scan them quickly and use them as navigation Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute Rschen's claim here. Of course Americans (and anybody else) can tell that there is a difference between these: . But ask most Americans which of them is a US route and which is a state route, I don't think that an overwhelming majority will know. Ask them which state the latter one is from, and nobody will know. Staecker (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the majority would know it's the former, not the latter in your example. The sign uses the shape of the "US Shield", a device used in the United States back to the early days of the republic on the Great Seal. The usage has been adapted since the debut of the system in 1926, when it looked like , but the shape has remained the same. The shapes and colors are unique to many states' systems. The FHWA's Manual of Urban Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) specifies that a circle be used as a default, which is used in several states. Most map makers consistently use the circle as the symbol for a state highway, when they use the Interstate Shield or the US Shield as the shapes for those highways on their maps. Wikipedia consistently uses the graphic road marker symbol next to the abbreviated name of a highway in highway articles' junction lists and infoboxes. This practice has been in place since before the 30 current US highway Feature Articles were promoted to that status, so the practice is well-ingrained in the minds of the readers of such articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What majority ? Are you aware there exists places in this world that are not in America? Gnevin (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Gnevin here. If you're at List of highways numbered 117 and looking for a specific road, the only way to find it is alphabetically by the text description. The pictures give no help at all in navigation because there's so many of them and they all look pretty similar. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If , , , or look similar (except for the number) please let me know. I would like to refer you to a qualified optometrist or ophthalmologist. Seriously, the fact remains that on around the many thousands of highway articles in the US, plus additional such articles for Canada, the highway marker graphics are used, in conjunction, with wikilinked or unlinked abbreviations of the highway names in infoboxes, junction lists or exit lists. Just like on the guide signs on the roadways, the marker graphics are used for visual recognition purposes. Those discussing it here may not see the utility, but it does exist, which is why they are used. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You've cherry picked the most dissimilar icons and the fact remains there are literally 100's if not 1,000's of variants of these icons. No one knows them all and as such there are not useful navigation aids. An argument you've ignored several times now Gnevin (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The shields look terrible and add no information so they should not be used in this way. --John (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this campaign to remove graphics going to be extended the other couple hundred similar articles? This is only the 117th article in a series that extends quite a bit higher in number. P.S. to the comment that the samples I gave are dissimilar... all of the US and Canadian highway markers are fairly dissimilar, even the ones that use the standard black square/rectangular background with a white shape in the middle are fairly different. is not the same as that would be above it in the list. As for the idea that no one knows them all, there's a group of people that do, roadgeeks.The American driving public may not know them all, but adding them in there gives a visual reference. If a searcher were looking for a particular highway off that list recalling the route marker posted, a text list does not provide that frame of reference. The fact remains that in the US, highways are identified by their markers first, text names second on the roadways. Off the road, print articles and other news stories are equally likely to refer to any highway as Highway 117 or Route 117 depending on the regional vernacular, obscuring the designations completely, even when mentioning highways from other states. It is fairly common online to see US highways shown with their markers like that list. Yes, I'm well aware that there are places that are not in America. I could care less if the markers are removed from non-US sections of the list, but leave them alone on the US section. Imzadi 1979 → 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that all of the US icons at 117s are "fairly dissimilar"? The ME and MA icons are actually identical! Maybe that's a mistake? As I said above, if you're looking for a specific road, the only way to find it is alphabetically by the text description. Looking through all the icons to find the one you want would be silly. You seem to suggest that a list with just icons would better than a list with just text. This is absolutely against established WP practice for icons, and (IMHO) obviously false anyway.

Wikipedia should not be written for roadgeeks any more than pokemon geeks or Star Wars geeks or classical music geeks. As for "it is fairly common online" this is also irrelevant. And yes, if there are other lists as bad as this one, then they'll need to be cleaned up too. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Staecker here; an encyclopedia is mainly a text resource, and pictures and graphics exist to support the text, not vice versa. --John (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the list should be only marker graphics, I said that the markers should supplement the links. A claim was made above that someone couldn't know all the different marker shapes, and I refuted that. There are people out there that can, and do. The images are an aid to identification. They are fairly dissimilar in that Washington State uses the silhouette of George Washington as their marker shape. Michigan uses a diamond, like North Carolina does, but Michigan includes the M as part of the number on the sign. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas (certain classes) use outlines of their states. California has their miner's spade, Utah is a beehive, which both highlight themes from their respective histories. Pennsylvania, the Keystone State, uses a keystone. Guam's marker looks like a surfboard, which I find very appropriate for a tropical island territory. Yes, several states have plain circles, and both Maine and Massachusetts have identical squares, so there is some overlap in designs.

You seem to suggest that no one could look through the listing on the page looking at the marker designs to find a visual match to find the right article. That's false as well. A reader can use the images for visual identification just as well as they can scroll down the list for the state's location in alphabetical order. Both methods are equally valid, and should both remain in the lists. There is a regional identification and correlation between a marker design and a system or systems of highways, be it Interstate, US or the various state or territory systems. And no, WP shouldn't be written purely for roadgeeks, and I never said it should be. WP should be written for the general public. These images are not purely decoration. They do impart actual information in the context I have shown.

Your suggesting there is a someone who knows what every countries national, sub-national, regional,historical and super-national etc signs looks like . That is literally thousands of signs and thousands of formats. If there are people like this they would be extremely rare. Gnevin (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you one last example. In the case of "Route 66", those readers not familiar with the fact that it was actually US 66 are still as likely to have see the US 66 shield design. It is used in most displays of that part of Americana. The List of highways numbered 66 should have that image there as an aid to identification of the US's Mother Road. If it didn't, readers from outside the US looking at this article for "Route 66" will be presented with several dozen possibilities, but only one correct answer. Yes, there is supplemental text after the link, but a quick visual scan also zeroes the eye on the list's version of the highway sign. Both means of identification (text, graphical) have their places, and my firm opinion is that a good compromise is to leave them be, at least in the US sections of the lists. Imzadi 1979 → 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I am sure there are other sites out there which work in the way you describe. Our readers, however, can read, and text is therefore our primary means of communicating with them. --John (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but text is not our only medium of communication. If it were, we would not have any images here on the site at all. Since we use both forms of communication, I see no harm in leaving the images in the lists as a secondary means of identification. I can make the argument that Wikipedia exceeds the "limitations" of traditional encyclopedias. They were limited to blocks of plain text or line drawings as a means to keep the overall size down. I can't imagine most paper encyclopedias covering highways in the US with the 10,500 or so separate articles that exist, but Wikipedia transcends a lot of those limitations. Text may be the primary means of communication, but all of our images, our photos and even our videos enrich the experience as secondary sources of communication. Imzadi 1979 → 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Doing no harm" is not a criterion for inclusion here. Some (including me) would contend that using images this way does do harm, as it interferes with the clear and readable style which we use here. It makes (in my opinion) articles look amateurish and untidy, without adding any benefit (apart from the fact that a few folk like yourself like them). In a disagreement like this the onus is on the editor wishing to retain or add the material. It might be a good starting point if you could show evidence (not opinion) that anybody finds articles easier to read when they are decorated with multiple, tiny, obscure icons. Are you able to do that? If not, there really isn't a discussion to be had. --John (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion of opinions. I've offered up my opinions with examples of why I hold those opinions, as have others. I've also offered up examples and opinions that clarify what has been characterized by others of my opinions and examples. Short of us pulling together a poll along the line or, "which to you prefer List A or List B?" and conducting an experiment that way, neither side will be full of evidence. You say that "doing no harm" is not an argument sufficient to retain the list as it was before, and back that up with your side's opinion. Another editor previously stated that the images "help with identification", and I've expounded on that point in reply. Essentially, both sides have stated their opinions, but neither has much in the line of evidence. There is no policy that says they must go. There is a style guideline which says: "Icons may be helpful in certain situations... They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon. However, since not all readers can do this, the icons should be accompanied with names or the use of sortable tables or both." These lists in question do comply with that acceptable use. The list is a list of article titles, so the list has accompanying names for each icon. I've given examples on how some, but not all, readers can use the icons here to scan for a desired entry on the list. My preference, which I say is supported as an allowable use, is to leave them. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just about anything short of copyright violation and defamation are "allowable" here; we're a very easy-going project. Unless there is actual evidence that this usage helps people, I am afraid they will have to go. Nothing to do with "sides", just common sense and policy. Regarding "help with identification", it is really hard for me to see how these graphics will help most readers (who are not road buffs) to identify anything. --John (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A question for those advocating the removal of icons from these lists: How is the use of route marker graphics in a list like this any different from various lists using country or state flag icons? I certainly am not familiar with the design of each country's flag, but if I know what a certain flag looks like I can easily scan the list until I find it. Same logic applies with these route marker icons. -- LJ ↗ 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the highway shield icons to be a useful navgational aid in the infobox and exit list tables of articles such as Interstate 95 in Maine (e.g. to quickly scan the list to find intersections with other interstates), but distracting, unnecessary, and not useful on the list articles mentioned above. This should not be surprising, that the same icon can be desirable in one context and undesirable in another. And that holds true for flag icons as well; very useful in some contexts, very distracting in others. Consequently, I find it necessary to step back and look at those articles as objectively as I can to avoid the ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT response. I try to imagine what an uninvolved, casual reader of the article would experience and how they would react. I encourage other editors to think like that. In this specific case, I'd ask myself if it is easier to scan a list looking for a certain tiny graphic image, or to find the name of the state in an alphabetically ordered list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are max 200 nation states with flags, these flags have wide spread usage outside Wiki and a well accepted usage in sporting contexts both on wiki and off it. The majority but not all of them are distinct at 20px and most importantly the have wide spread understanding by a large proportion of wiki users. A more like with like comparison would the sub-national flags which have very little usage on wiki unless there is a direct relevance Gnevin (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Andrwsc do you mind if I ask if your American or have spend a lot of time in that part of the world? Because when I look at Interstate 95 in Maine what I see is lots and lots of meaningless pictures, there are so many I can't create an association. I'm forced to tell my brain to ignore them as much as is possible . I much prefer M50_motorway_(Ireland) and M25_motorway is even better with the junctions listed normally Gnevin (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that since these articles are basically text on a background which conveys some information. What you end up doing it reading each icon and then making the association based on background or vice versa. So for M-46 – Saginaw, Kingston, Sandusky I read 46, then search for an associated image background , awe I think M and white and black is Michigan. Where as M-46 I read M for Michigan and 46 Gnevin (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American, but one of my children is. Beside that, however, I'd have to disagree with your opinion of M25 motorway. The authors of that article thought that intersections with other motorways were significant enough to use icons to indicate them in the infobox, but in the main table, they are not highlighted, so every junction is equal. It is more difficult to find the M1, M3, M4, etc. junctions without the visual aids. The type of icon is the clue here, not my personal familiarity with the road system in that country. I haven't visited Maine since the 70s, so I have no clue what their state shield looks like. But if I am browsing Interstate 95 in Maine, I can easily see the three types of highway junctions (state, U.S., and Interstate) because three different icon styles are used. It's easier to find the important junctions, or highways of interest. But this is a bit of a digression; the original thread was about lists like List of highways numbered 66, which cover a world-wide scope. Each icon is only ever used once, and the states/provinces/countries/etc. are listed alphabetically, so there is no navigational purpose whatsoever in that context, and I agree that those instances should have no icons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not find you read the icons, rather than recognise them as pictures? I agree we should focus on the lists Gnevin (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I just see them as "image blotches" that I pass over as I read the text. The numbers inside the icons are secondary to the type or style of the icon. I think this mode of browsing would work better for me if the icons were aligned in a seperate column from the text (so that the text is left-aligned regardless of the number of images preceding it). I wonder if that would make a difference to how you see it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WOW!. Time for a change of venue to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads ? This project has a serious icon addiction Gnevin (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to run AWB on Category:Lists_of_roads_sharing_the_same_title if that is what users support Gnevin (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. Rettetast (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you just going to remove all images? I say go for it unless there are some exceptions. I don't know these pages well enough to know if there are any appropriate images in any of them. (I looked through a few and didn't see any.) Staecker (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All them Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to remove them because they're actually violating MOSICON or because you personally don't like them? After reading this and re-reading the MOS page, I feel it's the latter. —Fredddie™ 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to look objectively at the MOSICON criteria and apply it to how I see their usage with regards to WP:USRD. —Fredddie™ 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate use

• Icons are always accompanied by text; if they aren't, they are corrected quickly.
• As most highways only meet another highway once, this is generally not an issue. An article like Maryland Route 2, where the the same route (MD 765) intersects MD 2 several times in a row, I agree the icon usage is a bit extreme.
• Not applicable to this discussion.

Inappropriate use

1. Do not use icons in general article prose - The vast majority of US roads articles follow this. Whenever something is found, it's corrected quickly.
2. Clarity - Clarity was never an issue until this discussion began.
3. Encyclopaedic purpose - The icons provide useful navigational cues.
4. Do not use too many icons - One highway designation, one icon. As I said above, there are instances where icon usage is a bit extreme, but for the most part it's not.
5. Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope - To my knowledge this has never been an issue.
6. Do not distort icons - Not applicable.
7. Do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas - Not applicable.
8. Remember accessibility for the visually impaired - When WP:ALT was being enforced about a year ago, {{Jct}}, think of it like {{flag}} for roads, was modified to removed the alt text, treating them as purely decorative images. Not all articles use {{Jct}}, so there may be some articles that haven't eliminated the alt text.

Encyclopaedic purpose - The icons provide useful navigational cues. They do no such thing Gnevin (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that these route marker icons do provide navigational cues in a dab list like this, at least to some users. -- LJ ↗ 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What users? How do they provide navigational cues, the majority of them are black and white images that say 117, you have to look extremely close to notice the subtle difference by which time you've noticed they are listed alphabetically and that Washington is some where near the bottom not the black and white icon with 117 and when you look really closely you see Washington's bust Gnevin (talk)22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone from outside any high way WP, I say the icons are useful on said pages. If I know a state I'm looking for has a different color on their signs, or a different or odd shape, to me that is easier to scan for then the name of the state. CTJF83 chat 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to have to agree that the icons appear useful in these articles and do not see them detracting. The anti-icon constituency tends to take a very doctrinaire approach to any icons anywhere which I have never really understood. As long as the icon usage is not running into the articles themselves I think their limited usage in lists and infoboxes appears to be justifiable and helpful to the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead commanders

What is peoples opinion of the crucifix beside the commanders in FARC ,I've seen this in a number of places. I would contend it violates.

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired as it conveys important information but gives no alt text so visually impaired people would not know it
• Usage of a crucifix beside non catholics may be controversial or convey misleading information
• Does it indicate they where KIA or have just died?

I think we should remove these and replace with words Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd object to them because it's not clear what they're supposed to mean. You say it means they're dead? That's not explained anywhere, so I'd say it fails to "conveys important information". Staecker (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:KIA should be used instead of a bare symbol. And as the dagger article tells us, "In military history, a dagger is often placed next to the name of a commander who is killed in action." It most certainly isn't a Catholic-only symbol. Further discussion ought to go to WP:MILHIST. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed- the template adds in the needed information. Staecker (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a dagger! Well you learn something new everyday. Once it's replaced by the template which offers alt text then I've no issue Gnevin (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also agree that the KIA template is preferred (with alt text enabled) but before we go making massive wiki wide changes I think it needs to be discussed a little more first. Only because these daggers are often within templates and sometimes putting a template in a template can have unintended consequences. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unicode icons

The policy only discusses image icons, not unicode icons such as ✓. How can these types of icons be made to comply with the policy? SharkD  Talk  21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation?

Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Earthquakes in XXXX

{{Earthquakes in 2010}} made my eyes hurt when I first saw it. Surely the earth icons should be removed. What about the flags that are not accompanied with country names? Rettetast (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The earth icons should go for sure, the blue bold and underscore is totally unclear and should be replaced with ^* or something similar. As for the other flags in general I feel WP:CON is moving away from that type of eye burning usage however this MOS does allow icons in long lists Gnevin (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am getting reverted by an editor. It would be great to have more input at the talk page of the template. Rettetast (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 earthquakes is pretty crazy too. I went ahead and removed the UN flag at least (which had been used for "World"). I would support removing most of the flags from that article as well, as they add nothing to the article. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the UN flag was correct per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Do_not_repurpose_icons_beyond_their_legitimate_scope. I personally feel the flags don't do much for that article but there is a legitimate claim of navigation there Gnevin (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox rail accident

Flag discussion at WT:TWP#Use of flags in infobox rail accident. Rettetast (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Use of "The Star of David" as an identifier of a persons religious affiliation

Resolved

Extended content

I have inserted the "Star of David" on the pages of Jewish "Chairman of the Federal Reserve" articles. An edit war (actually more of a reverting process has taken place and there has been negative and false reasons for the reversions and accusations of vandalism on my part by Fat&Happy. Another editor GBfan [[1]] reverted the contributions with what was thought to be a constructive suggestion, then claimed that he didn't mean that because he considers it an Icon, and my intentions are to use it as a symbol, which has far more implications than the term Iconic in terms of cultural and national identity. Of the fourteen Chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the US since its present form since The Banking Act of 1935, ten have been identified as being Jewish, that would be approximately 72% of the Chairmen have been Jewish, where the Jewish population is less than 2% of the US population. The disparity in cultural identity shows a correlation that I intend to use in an article and it would benefit the reader to be able to identify the symbol as a reference rather than looking for the members religious or national reference where there may not be one. There are a few who have no affiliation. Thanks in advance for any constructive suggestions as to how the symbol Star of David, can be used without it being considered as just an image as the other editors have stated.Victor9876 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) This is wrong on so many levels. I concur with the reverters. Using icons to convey unimportant information in a biography is unhelpful and borderline trolling. Rettetast (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Totally agree with Rettetast. Unless someone's religion is relevant to their notability, why include it? Adding an icon for this purpose is daft. Sounds like the article that Victor9876 is working on might run into some OR issues. --hippo43 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Totally agree with both above. Should never be done Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Far too reminiscent of the Nazis' use of the yellow star. Yuck. Terminate with extreme prejudice. --John (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Usage is so bad I've added it as an example in the MOS Gnevin (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The above has been withdrawn due, in part, to a lack of discussion and comments by contributors that are making accusations of "borderline trolling", which is false and "trolling" in itself. I accept the limitations of my efforts and withdraw the request for further comments to prevent any further comments that may become inciteful, as John's ignorant use of invoking the Nazi term due his own limited view of intent.Victor9876 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I thought I struck the discussion as reported on others talk pages. If I didn't save it properly, I will now. Regards!Victor9876 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reader who scan

[2] interesting read and make no argument about using icons Gnevin (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) [3][4]. Any comments? Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Icons - Thoroughbreds

Note: this edit contains the content being discussed below. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears User:Garion96 thinks only his opinion (snide) counts on this guideline. It does not. Those would make large contribtions on a specific subject, do. Handicapper (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:BRD. You were bold and placed the section, I reverted because I don't think it fits with the guideline, the next step is take it to the talk page and discuss the edit. Not revert again and discuss an editor instead of the edit. Garion96 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time I have encountered you and both times your attitude and snide commentary have been unacceptable. My edit on this subject stands. Let me repeat: your opinion does not superceded mine, or any other editor. That is policy. If you disagree, then in fact the onus is on you, not me, to take the appropriate steps to determine if my edit is inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Handicapper (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) And, BTW, forming a minor cabal, as you did previously, to have someone assert your apparent need for control will get such action to arbitration. . Handicapper (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refresh my memory. Where have I encountered you? It is interesting to notice though you still refuse the discuss the actual edit it seems. Why should this section be added to this guideline? Garion96 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople , Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality.Gnevin (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Handicapper, showing up and claiming that your opinion is valuable and someone else's isn't is not a good way to begin any discussion. Comment on content, not contributors; if you can't explain why your edit is necessary, there is no point continuing with this.
For what it's worth, I think this is an awfully small and limited issue to take up space on a project-wide MOS page. It seems like the sort of thing that can be sufficiently dealt with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that that there should be any exception for thhoroughbreds. I can't see any reason for it. There is also a lot of flag problems in related articles and there should be a cleanup drive. Handicapper has been fighting for his flags for years and also left wikipedia after a flag dispute in 2008 so he should know that he does not have consensus for his edit. Rettetast (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So that's where he "encountered" me before, thanks. Yes, it does look like it's the same dispute again two years later. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Rettetast - You do not know why I stopped editing for a time. There is no "my Flags" issue with me, my issue is people who form cabals to control thyeir POV, and you and your tiny group of buddies epitomiize that. But now that Garion96 has "invited" others to look at this, I will too. In fact, and I repeat, Manual of Style (icons) is a guideline only and not policy. It is subject to change by consensus, not by an operating cabal (which in this case knows zero on the subject raised) and is illegal at Wikipedia as part of the five ironclad original rules governing editors as set down by Mr. Wales when Wikipedia opened in 2001. So, I will initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to help formulate any appropriate additions to this guidline as was done for "football", although I can't seem to find the consesus for that. Handicapper (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One main point, and two minor points:

1) It's best to start discussions by explaining what it is exactly that you believe should be done. Specifically, point to or include the exact text under discussion (I've now done so at the top of this thread). If there is a discussion elsewhere (that formed a WP:Consensus) then link to that also (I searched the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing talkpage archives, and there were no discussions about flags or icons. Possibly you've discussed it somewhere else?). That's the main point.

2) It's not clear how you are distinguishing a WP:Consensus from a WP:Cabal... If a group of people all happen to disagree with a particular opinion, that doesn't automatically make them a "cabal", it just means they share an opinion or interpretation, and are expressing it. 3) Wikipedia is not a battleground. The written tone of your writing above is very aggressive. For anyone coming to this discussion without prior background (like me), there is no context of the item under discussion, just one editor aggressively making abstract demands and accusations. Explaining things clearly and politely will convince a lot more people than the alternative.

On the issue itself, I have no opinion, because I have been given no facts or perspectives to base an opinion on. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As already stated on this page, I will be initiating a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing where the issue raised will be understood. That will be done in due course once I have accumulated all necessary information and then the members' consensus will be acted upon. In addition, I plan to submit a proposal to a higher level with a view to ending this system whereby four or five people can establish a "guideline" then go about imposing their "guideline" on the more than three thousand other editors at Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow for Guidelines to be imposed, policy does. Guidelines of any kind that affect every type of article in any category requires far more input than a handful of people, and, as demonstrated in this specific instance, and continues to be demonstrated to this moment, requires input from people who know exactly what they are talking about. Handicapper (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1) The content you wanted to add wasn't clear. It could mean either: Flags should be used for the "nationality by foaling" and "the country they race for", or, flags should just be used for one of those.

2) I was searching for previous discussions, but could not find anyone discussing the topic. The only single mention of flags, was in this thread, where he didn't sound enthusiastic about it. But please do start a new discussion. Discussion is almost always a good idea.

3) Individual wikiproject styleguides do not "trump" wikipedia-wide styleguides. They are subsidiary supplements to the wikipedia-wide styleguides. (like descendant wikiprojects).
E.g. If a wikiproject had a discussion and formed a "consensus" among the participants to always use white text on a black background for the articles within their scope (or to always use American English even if the article was about a Welsh topic, counter to WP:ENGVAR, etc etc), it would be overruled. The wikipedia-wide styleguides exist in order to promote consistency and accessibility. There can sometimes be nuanced differences between wikiproject styleguides and wikipedia-wide styleguides, but they will have logical reasons that are clearly expressed, not just "I am an expert and I think it is necessary".

4) You mentioned "football" guidelines above, but I cannot find any mention of "flags" in the various football-wikiproject styleguides. Which football guideline (or article examples) are you referring to?

If you explain your position (on the flag topic) clearly and politely, then everyone will know what you are wanting to talk about. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. You'll convince more wikipedia-editors (on any talkpage, on any topic) by being clear and friendly. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at several of the articles in Category:Thoroughbred racehorses, and I think they are a textbook case of inappropriate icons. Articles that use {{Infobox thoroughbred racehorse}} tend to have a singular flag icon next to the name for the country parameter. Why should that lone infobox field be highlighted with an icon, giving it undue weight? Is that the defining trait for each horse? How is country = [[United States]] {{flagicon|United States}} any more helpful for the reader than a single link to United States? A screen reader would say "United States United States", by the way, which is poor for WP:Accessibility. I'd support an AWB run to remove those solitary icons from those infoboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I shake my head in wonder at people like Andrwsc who come here and make absolute statements in an assertive manner that declares they have knowlewdge of the facts but which actually shows they have no idea whatsoever about the issue. It only reinforces what I have been saying all along and is precisely why the knowledgable members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing are being forced to deal with it. Just amazing. Handicapper (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore your personal attack, but please answer this question: how is country = [[United States]] {{flagicon|United States}} superior to country = [[United States]] for this infobox? Why is the flag icon necessary? What is so special about this infobox versus others that don't highlight the Country field this way? What do the knowledgable members of your WikiProject have to say about it? (I see no discussion there whatsoever.) Instead of insulting me, how about educating me? Tell me why the flag icon is necessary. Convince me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI Gnevin (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Crusades

Thoughts and opinions on First Crusade? Gnevin (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities

There is currently discussion at talk:Air India Express Flight 812 about how nationalities are displayed with flags. That article has nationalities displayed at Serbia etc, whereas on the Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 article the same information would be presented as Serbian.

My view is that the latter is more encyclopedic, using the correct denonym for the nationality. Maybe this could be solved with a template that produces the flag, and links to the country with the correct denonym displayed. It may be that consensus is against my proposal so I'm opening it up for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Existing templates can handle this already, such as {{flag|Serbia|name=Serbian}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I would appreciate any outside opinions to the use of both state and country flagicons in the roster tables at both Talk:2009–10 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team#Use of flagicons in award/roster tables and Talk:2010–11 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team#Use of flagicons in roster tables. I have tried to set up discussions with editor and have not received a response and an admin suggested getting a third opinion here. Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this use of flag icon appropriate?

{{Shipboxflag}} produces a huge flag which is used in {{Infobox ship image}}. Is this appropriate flag use? It wouldn't be if it were in a people or company/organization infobox. __meco (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are appropriate . Should go. Gnevin (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be used mainly for naval ships, which means those ships A) flew those flags specifically and B) worked directly for the government which the flag represents. Seems like appropriate usage to me. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In either case I feel like this should be decided on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, not here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag in Infobox

Just want to make sure I've understood it correctly. The use of flags in infoboxes for representing an individual's nationality is inappropriate like this:

Nationality: United States

right?

Another question: Is it generally fine to indicate someone's nationality in his/her infobox or it's better not to mention it there and only indicating it in the first line of the article would be enough?-- And Rew 00:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding on flags is correct. As for the mention of nationality, it should generally be avoided, due to ambiguity. Is a man born in Italy who acquires American citizenship Italian, American, or Italian-American? What if one of the parents was Spanish?

The only times where nationality should be explicitly mentioned is if the person publicly identifies themselves with a nationality, or if nationality is central to a person's notability. For example someone who is notable because they're an international athlete, or have a similar achievement in another field which required them to be a certain nationality (for instance Miss Sweden). WFCforLife (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think nationality actually refers to someone's status of citizenship, if that man who was born in Italy has 2 passports (Italian and American) then he is Italian-American but if for some reasons he has given up his Italian passport his nationality is American although he was born in Italy. Regardless of that I understand your concerns about not emphasizing too much on someone's nationality.-- And Rew 03:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags in headings

To be absolutely clear, I'm not condoning the existence of this article. But are flags acceptable for use in section headers, such as here? Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, infact see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_45#2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads for a recent (2010 World Cup) football related discussion of using flags and links in headings. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed them. I still question the usefulness of that article, but I dislike getting involved in multiple AfDs at the same time. WFCforLife (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Making Football squad templates compliant with MOSFLAG

A change was made to the Football squad templates to make it comply with MOS and it was reverted in dispute. Thus an RFC (Template talk:Football squad player#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG) is raised. The RFC is brought to attention here because it deeply involves the MOS, particularly the guideline for "Accompany flags with country names". Your participation in the RFC shall help to establish a record whether the templates should be brought into compliance with the MOS or they shall be exempt from it. Jappalang (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also at WT:BASEBALL

A similar discussion has begun at WT:BASEBALL regarding use of flags in Major League Baseball roster lists. I would like to specifically bring attention to my comments questioning the validity of the sportsperson section of this guideline. (Capsule version: I believe that section of this guideline suffers from a case of WP:CONLIMITED and is questionable in light of the much broader actual practice in soccer, hockey, basketball and other sports articles. There's far more editors involved in those than there is here.) oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Singular flagicons to mark place in infoboxes

An editor has recently made edits to every article in Category:UCI Road World Championships by year, adding the flagicon of the country hosting the event in the infobox. I had a gut feeling that WP:MOSFLAG prohibited this, but having had a look I can't really see anything about it. I'm just wondering if WP:MOSFLAG says something I have missed or if anyone has any comments about such usage? Severo^TC 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mosicon#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason would apply. Gnevin (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, another issue has arisen connecting to cycling infoboxes - this time {{Infobox cyclist}}. Over the past few months there has been a tendency for jersey icons to appear in the infobox, here for example. I first raised this (in connection with general infobox things) in April and an editor recently made a revision based on that but was immediately reverted (twice) and so the debate has been reopened and it would be good to get as many opinions as possible about this. (I apologise if this is considered "forum shopping" - just trying to get as many interested editors involved as possible). Thanks, Severo^TC 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag disagreement

I've recently started editing at List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries, with the long-term aim of mirroring the work I'm doing at List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. I raised the issue with the editor on my talk page, and he or she responded at mine, stating that subnational flags should be used. Acutely aware of the fact that I've made three flag-related edits in recent hours, I thought the best thing to do was to raise the issue here, allow people better versed in policy (and when to make exceptions to it) than myself, and take a back seat until that time. Regards, --WFC-- 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not. Subnational flags on sports pages are (marginally) applicable when a team represents the subnational entity, such as state vs. state or province vs. province competition. But used to identify the location of a team? No. That's just superfluous decoration. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Too serious!

I have recently been noticing that some editors are taking this particular section of the manual of style to serious. There is one user (User:Gnevin) who is continually removing useful and uninterruptive images and icons. Some are understandable like having an unknown sketch of an animal in a box about a whole group of animals, but having the flag of china in a box all about chine could serve a useful purpose. Also, some things DO need aesthetic additions especially when small or using minimal words. Do you think additional text should be added to allow for a less strict policy or are some users just to direct? Andrew Colvin • Talk 22:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What is ridiculous to quote your self is the use of icons like [5] ,[6] and [7] . These are not helpful. Gnevin (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The icon in the first example is purely ornamental, and serves as a distraction (or "interruption") more than any informative purpose. I'm not sure about the second example. The third example is vastly more confusing than helpful, as the shape is clearly not representative of the borders at all times that the navbox covers.

I recommend you read the whole of this page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)) in order to get a better idea of what the community-as-a-whole thinks about icon-images. There are a large number of editors who object to superfluous icons. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case in some places, but many icons deserve respect for placement. Additionally, things like the images on [8] and [9] may not seem to serve a purpose, but are of good use as aesthetic appeal as with many other navboxes. In [10], it says not to use them as decorative items. Well, then why is it that all the portals ([11] and [12] for example), template message boxes ([13]), and other templates (Template:Meta) use decorative and useless icons? I see no problem with this, but the use of images and icons in some places tend to add to appeal, inform of further information (such as learning what the flag of china looks like when seeing it next to the word china), and help direct into whole new articles of interest and relation (such as having the phylogenetic tree on the evolution template). As a matter of fact, having that phylogenetic tree on the evolution template helped me learn about trees such as that and directed me to the website where it was rendered from; further expanding my knowledge about the topic. It might be of more use to have a caption under the images describing what it, however, who does it hurt to have such an image? I am beyond sure there are not many readers saying, “That tiny image is distracting me from reading the word ‘evolution’!” Andrew Colvin • Talk 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a subjective opinion on navbox prominence. Some people want navboxes to stand out, and some people want navboxes to fade into the background unless specifically needed or sought-out.

It's also a subjective variance between aesthetic minimalism and maximalism. To use an extreme example, compare Help:Contents/Site map now, with Help:Contents (Site map on one page) 4 years ago. Some people prefer one, some other people prefer the other.

In different situations, I support different decisions. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. It's subjective, and our audience/community is diverse, so in certain instances editors will always disagree with each other. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true! I guess it is just something that will have to be tolerated civily. Andrew Colvin • Talk 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Portals and other similar are not encyclopaedic content are not included in this guidelines scope. Template:Evolution3 is a large blurry swirls . While Template:Creationism2 has a catholic image on a topic in the scope of multiple religions . There may not be many users saying That tiny image is distracting me from reading the word ‘evolution’ but there are user saying What is that tiny image I can't see at . I wonder if its important Gnevin (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and that question of the tiny image can allow for readers to learn even more about the subject they are exploring. I had never even seen that image before until I clicked on that tiny icon. That catholic image is the creation of Adam by god and it does represent creationism even if its multiple religions being represented. It isn’t perfect, and neither is the evolution image, but who does it harm? It can do more good than it can harm. Andrew Colvin • Talk 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The argument that icons help readers learn is rarely true . Our readers expect to click links to find out more about topics. I don't click image to find out more as the image is often used in 100's of pages and its nearly impossible to find out which page has the information on the image. The picture of adam is pure decoration if it causes any harm at all it should be remove. I don't understand why you reverted [14] here . Anyway the CON is against pointless decoration and I will continue removing these sort of icons Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And I will keep doing what I feel is appropriate or inappropriate, as this is all purely subjective. Andrew Colvin • Talk 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not subjective the con is not to use Icons to make things looking pretty which is what you are doing Gnevin (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, I do agree with Gnevin, that the "WP:Consensus" of the community leans heavily towards using fewer icons/flags/decorations. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This small community you are referring to (probably less than a dozen) leans heavily towards instruction creep too. That doesn't make it right. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The "community" I'm referring to includes: the thousands of editors that write articles, that debate points on talkpages, as well as the few individuals who speak up at MoS talkpages. I'm well aware that the people at guideline talkpages are not necessarily representative.

And yes, we all (do and should) try to avoid instruction creep... That's part of keeping WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY working. That's why I frequently oppose anyone enshrining their perspective (or "the communities perspective") in guideline/policy pages. That's why I often support WP:NOTAG. etc -- Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"It's also a subjective variance between aesthetic minimalism and maximalism." - Quiddity. See [15], [16], and pillar five of [17]. If you want to slap a bunch of “policy” in my face, be my guest. If my edits are not destructive and can only foster helpful additions to Wikipedia, then there is not a problem. Enough said. Andrew Colvin • Talk 05:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of flag icons in concert tours or festivals

Would it be appropriate to use the flag icons on international concert tour/festival articles next to the respective city for each tour date? Examples of international concert tour articles currently using flag icons include All Hope Is Gone World Tour, Hellbilly Deluxe 2 World Tour or Mayhem Festival 2010. Is this within the guidelines set up here? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to come down hard and fast here so I will sit on the Fence . This MOS used to have a section which suggested readers could scan for the flag they where looking for quicker than reading the words. I removed that section as I could see no evidence of it being true . So as the MOS stands now I think they should go, as it was before my edit they can stay per the scan argument. I'll ask User:WFCforLife for their opinion Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(I've only looked at All Hope is Gone). My opinion is that the biggest problem is the way it's being done. For the United States, flags can't be used in lieu of the country name. Besides, there is extremely questionable benefit to flags where the entire column consists of one country. The only parts of the article that make a good case for it are the European section, and maybe the US and Canada leg at the bottom. Even in those sections, I think the implementation should be like this:

Date	City	Country	Venue	Ref
June 6, 2009	Nürburgring	Germany	Rock am Ring and Rock im Park
June 7, 2009	Nuremberg	Germany
June 9, 2009	Warsaw	Poland	Torwar Hall
June 10, 2009	Ostrava	Czech Republic	ČEZ Aréna
June 13, 2009	Donington Park	England	Download Festival
June 14, 2009	Interlaken	Switzerland	Greenfield Festival
June 16, 2009	Zagreb	Croatia	Dom Sportova
June 17, 2009	Belgrade	Serbia	Belgrade Arena
June 19, 2009	Nickelsdorf	Austria	Nova Rock Festival
June 20, 2009	Nijmegen	Holland	Sonisphere at Goffert Park
June 24, 2009	Arendal	Norway	Hove Festival
June 26, 2009	Gothenburg	Sweden	Metal Town Festival

But to be clear, in All Hope is gone I don't think flags (or a country column) would be in any way beneficial in the completely US or completely Canadian sections. Hope that helps. Regards, --WFC-- 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with these comments; flag icons are only useful (in my opinion) when there is a diverse mixture of countries in a list or table. An all-USA tour (perhaps with the occasional Canadian stop) does not need icons to help the reader navigate the table. But also in WFCforLife's example, I cringe at {{flag|Holland}}. Better to use "Netherlands" for this nation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The readers who scan argument doesn't really work and is no longer part of this MOS Gnevin (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I copy-pasted the source code, and didn't really think about it. Netherlands is correct, although in fairness to the author "Holland" was consistent with "England", which should probably be changed to "United Kingdom". --WFC-- 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since these flagicon removals I thought I would respond here, so thank you Gnevin for alerting me to this discussion. I would have been here earlier, but life got in the way.

I removed the flagicons with the edit summary "Removed flagicons per WP:ICONDECORATION, removed overlinking and fixed tables" because I felt the flagicons were nothing but decoration since the countries names are also in the table. I removed flagicons from quite a few tour pages also due to most of the other tour articles not having the flagicons. I have been reverted on some of them with either no edit summary, basically calling it vandalism, to being called a vandal for removing them, being told they are pretty and make the articles look better and being told most tour pages already have them or are getting them when that is not true. In the example of Mayhem Festival 2010, here is what my improved chart looked like, [18], because I think the vertical listing of July and August in the current version looks terrible.

Here are two other examples of the worst ones I have seen, The Mars Volta tours, that uses numerous European flagicons and then behind some of them have "not EU" for countries like Switzerland. Another example is the entire separate column in articles like 2008/2009 World Tour (Judas Priest) before even the city is listed. Here is the revision I changed the table to, [19], that combined the countries together instead of having a huge list in a row of "United States", actually provided links to the countries and removed the section headings in the table that I have never seen used in tables here on Wikipedia. This was reverted with the edit summary of "Restored flag icons, used as navigational and layout cues as stated in the WP:ICONDECORATION guideline." which so far has been the only response I have had as an articulate response, but I do not understand what layout cue the flagicons have and I do not feel they have navigational cues. Of course none of the table improvements I made were commented on, but were still reverted. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree your version is better . I've reverted maybe a second user will change this users mind Gnevin (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe anyone can disagree on the fact that in a "listing" article the flags help locate on fgast scrolling the different continents or areas which a user is looking for. Thi shas been discussed before way more widely than this tiny (for now) discussion, and that was the general consensus. General article flags-ridden: no. Listing article with flags to help the scrolling: yes. It's just general common sense. I do not understand why Gnevin and Aspects work jointly towards damaging articles this way, and with such a fury, and I mean this in a no bitter way, but you try so hard and so fast anf furious, that the results are youi roll back to outdated versions, full if mistakes, like Gnevin did without paying attention before damaging the current version which was up there, and never apologizing for that which I regard as vandalism at worst, and lack of care at best. In a listing article, such as concert tours, flags help the scrolling, period. Last but not least, I am not afraid to admit and add that yes, flags do make the article look better, instead of terribly bland and empty, but all this does NOT affect the quality of the article, actually quite the opposite. What do you guys think? Let's discuss this before we forced our (outdated, sometimes) way in, ok? This is the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's be calm and discuss my points. cheers! Eyesbomb (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said to you before where is the prior discussion and the notion the flags help readers scan has be rejected Gnevin (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which discussion was that? I ask honestly, because the only one I've seen was your cryptically written comment linking to one source article explaining your removal of the paragraph on readers who scan. A single article that lacked thoroughness, in my opinion. If that's the discussion you mean, I honestly don't think it was sufficient to off-handedly dismiss anyone's call for a more scanable article.

There are many different ways to read, and in my education career I can honestly say that younger (<30 yrs) readers (many of them now college graduates) having been raised in a digital media environment, do readily respond to multimedia visual content in their reading. So saying that images should always be removed is, in my experience, an outdated concept, and citing one article claiming against that as proof is simply not enough.

And before you start talking about WP:OR, this isn't an article, it's a guideline. What we decide is all that's needed. Your opinion is informed by your reading, mine on professional experience. We need more than just those two to decide the content of this guideline.oknazevad (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with oknazevad, naturally. Unfortunately, had I remembered where was that discussion from some good years ago, I would have linked it already guys. I am sorry I did not answer all this early, but I was blocked by Aspects who had me blocked so that while so, he could edit back the article as he did. I frankly believe that this behaviour is not really acceptable nor constructive enough, and I reiterate that we should look for and reach a larger consens before we jointly (Aspects and Gnevin)) raid all the articles like these on Wikipedia and force our way through, articles that have been there for years (I've been taking care of this article for a good part of my life since I myself created it!). At this point, I should have these two guys blocked two or they will just proceed and force their ideas despite reaching a larger consensus at all costs, but I want to demonstrate that there is always a more democratic and mature way to settle things, so I will not. Instead, I will revert the article back 'til we have some other opinions, and I hope that finally the two guys will accept a democratic discussion! I have no reason to doubt they will. And yes, an article of 'listings' like this makes it leaps abnd bounds easier and smoother to read and find sections with flags, until it's demonstrated that it doesn't, the flags should stay indeed. And once again, though a minor issue, it does come out as nicer, which is ok when nicer does not affect readability, and in this case, it's the exact opposite. Who doesn't agree?Eyesbomb (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010

Icons aid navigation you say ? So prove it as I've seen no evidence of it Gnevin (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep forcing your way throiugh with that article, you just wrote hungry instead of Hungary, you just seem very confused and nervous, I encourage you to calm down and akwowledge that consensus says they aren't useless, the flags, yet. Someone could report these two users perhaps? I promised not to do it, even if they keep trying to block me. Eyesbomb (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2010

I can assure you I am quite calm and I am not confused nor nervous. Please discuss my arguments not me. As for Con it would appear to me that me, Andrwsc, Fezmar9, Aspects and WFCforLife are against how the flags are used or against them altogether . Only you and perhaps oknazevad are in favour (if I've misrepresented or misunderstood anyone please feel free to strike your name). You are being blocked for violating WP:3RR no one is forcing you to revert constantly . You could discuss the issue and gather a CON and then revert Gnevin (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am actually neutral on the matter. I just wanted to see what this MOS had to say about it since WP:CONCERTTOURS does not exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You obviously lie, Gnevin. WFC isn't in favour, andrwsc isn't in favour, and Oknazevad isn't perhaps against, to put it that way is pathetic at best and false at worst. Only the gang of the two of you is in favour, not aknowledging that it facilitates the scrolling to have the flags, it facilitates nothing not to have them. I encourage more people to state their CON so to revert this awful situation, and I encourage you not to put words in people's mouth, it's makes us all cringe. Please, more people comment and state their CON, because this is just ridiculous. It's more like a 3-3 draw at this time, if users are 'forced' to vote, so this does not entitle you gang of two to keep bulying and forcing your way through it. Stop. Eyesbomb (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

People don't have CON they have an opinion. I drew up the list of users as I honestly saw it. I also told users to correct me if I was mistaken , which so far one user has. No one is bulling but saying an editor is lying and your tone don't help Gnevin (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin I am sorry buit to enlist them the way you did was hypocrital, as everyone can see, it's like you -wanted- to see it. Moreover, the topic really is controversial, despite you putting words in people mouth, so I really wouldn't be so stubborn regarding this topic and keep on editing the article like you and your mate keep doing obsessively. Yes, indeed someone denied your claims ahnd disregarded them as wrong and the others didn't even see this thread anymore otherwise they would have done the same, but this, well, doesn't entitle you to not look for more consensus before keeping on reverting that topic, and this is also valid for the other of the gang of two, Aspects. My tone comes from the fact that I was BLOCKED upon your request guys so that you could force your way through the topic and protect it like it was yours, instead of lookinf for MORE consensus than this or at least not pretend that people against were in favour. Now once again the article is outdated because Aspects rushed to re-edit it back, and so some details are missing and some names' updates are not there anymore, like Fest instead of Festival; this is just like when you rushed and forced your own dominance over the article writing things like Hungry instead of Hungary and other amenities. This is not the way things are done. I've been generating and 'running' this article for years and years, basically all by myself with immense dedication, and even thought I have well clear in mind I cannot consider it as own property (this would be completely against wikipedian spirit) and I wouldn't want to, out of respect for the enormous amount of work and my opinion on it, supported by people's opinion falsely claimed as in favour of (what I see as) the atrocity it would be immensely more classy of you two guys to step back, be humble and say "ok, we always fuck it up here and there just to rush to revert it as we like it/ yes, I was wrong, I claimed some users' opinions were what they weren't, falsely/ this article ain't mine and ain't yours, but out of simple, kind respect for an article you've been working on for years and years and years, I will look for more consensun than a 3-3 before forcing it once gaain, blocking you, or attempting other things like that". That I would appreciate. Can we get that? Eyesbomb (talk) 2:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem isn't helpful. Please discuss how you think this guideline is incorrect, suggest changes or build a clear consensus on the article talk page or here that this article should ignore this guideline Gnevin (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude you are mistaken, it's YOU who has to look for consensus to change a status quo, as a 3-3 isn't enough even if you falsely claimed about users' opiniuon that were in fact different! You must build consensus, and THEN keep forcing your way reverting the original article. :) SPeaking about facts, as aknowledged by someone else on this same thread, in 2010 kids are used to polichromatic viewing experiences, and so the flags help locate faster, when scrolling, the different (geographic9 sections, especially the ones other than the US-robust seciton, like even someonelse also stated on tuis very thread. This is my main point, what is your valid technical point AGAINST the flags? State it, find consensus to change the status quo, and THEN force your way, not before. Others are still welcome to say if the flags help the scrolling or not, despite the false claims which have been denied we are still 3-3. Eyesbomb (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of flags and common sense

On this FLC of the article Joan Gamper Trophy, an editor opposes because MOSFLAG states that flagicons should be followed by full name of country. Being a sortable list, that would necessitate the creation of four extra columns which specifies nationality for each club. That is simply not doable. Should the MoS in this case be ignored or do people here genuinely believe that the article would be better without the flagicons indicating nationality? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely believe the article would be better without flags. I find that the whole article looks quite messy. Especially the Participation by club section, plus all the Spanish flags. There also is a reason that flagicons are followed by the full name of the country. I recognise the flag of Spain and I know Barcelona is in Spain, but not every reader does. Even more readers won't recognise or know Újpest FC is an Hungarian club. Garion96 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There are probably places were WP:IGNORE is appropriate. To me... the flags look awful in the "Participation by club" section. They look fine and are appropriate in the "Titles by club" section (although there is plenty of room for a separate "country" column there which may be better, which could arguably serve as a reference for the rest of the page, meaning there is no need for flag references elsewhere). Ambivalent on the flags in the main listing. To me they are pretty obviously all national flags; unfamiliar ones can be clicked on, and I don't see the repeated need for country names in absolutely every case, and often for a winners list it seems nice. But, that many columns of flags is a bit distracting to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Put a legend in the article, so that the full name is shown for each icon at least once. You don't need the full name for every instance, but once is necessary. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the current solution acceptable? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I don't think a table legend should be a top-level section in the article (i.e. marked by == so that it appears in the table of contents). You've elevated the legend to the same level as the list itself. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The alternatives would be either to jump to a third level section straight after the lead, introducing a bolded heading to avoid that anomoly, or putting the key below the first occurance of the flag. I'm not entirely sure what else Sandman can do. --WFC-- 05:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean

but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. What are layout cues? Gnevin (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Town-twinning and flags

There are some questions that come up occasionally in connection with town twinning:

Question 1. When listing the "twins" of a town/city, do we use flags for them?

Question 2. If we use flags, do we use (a) one flag only for each "twin", or (b) several?

Question 3. Which of the following types of flag do we use? (a) The flag of the greatest applicable national/sovereign entity. (b) The flag of the smallest applicable entity that people think of as a "country", "state" or "nation". (c) The flag of the twin town or twin city itself.

There are obviously some complicated relations between these questions, and some possible answers raise even more questions. For example, many citizens of the UK seem to be longing for Balkan-like conditions and claim that it makes more sense to use the flags of the four constituent countries of the UK than it does for Bavaria (which has a longer history as a separate country and still calls itself a "free state"), Quebec (which has a different language than the rest of the country and a large degree of autonomy), Alto-Adige/Südtirol (ditto), or California (almost as much population as England).

Here is an artificial example, consisting entirely of cases that show the problem:

Example 1 – No flags at all

• Tempe, Arizona, United States
• Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
• Brixen, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy
• Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Windsor, Ontario, Canada
• Qamdo, [no flag] Tibet, China

Example 2 – Only top-level flags

• Tempe, Arizona, United States
• Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
• Brixen, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy
• Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Windsor, Ontario, Canada
• Qamdo, Tibet, China

Example 3 – Only flag of bottom-level surrounding entity

• Tempe, Arizona, United States
• Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
• Brixen, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy
• Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Windsor, Ontario, Canada
• [no flagicon available] Qamdo, Tibet, China

Example 4 – All applicable flags

• Tempe, Arizona, United States
• Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
• Brixen, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy
• Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Windsor, Ontario, Canada
• Qamdo Tibet, China

Hans Adler 18:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

While I obviously have some personal preferences, I think it's objectively true that the third example contradicts the spirit of this guideline: These subnational flags are merely decorative, and have no chance to help readers recognise the geographical areas / political entities in question. I think it's important to fix some solution and stick to it, since editors are going around through the project, changing twinning entries related to a single region between the second, third and fourth scheme. Many of these seem to have political/nationalist motives, while others merely want to enforce their reading of this guideline. Hans Adler 18:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"... many citizens of the UK seem to be longing for Balkan-like conditions ..." Really? NPOV as ever I see, Hans Adler. Why do you feel the need to be so offensive? Setting out your battleground, perhaps? The best solution is none of those given above, but would be for the flags shown to be of those to which the cities belong. Thus, from the example given above:

Example 5 – Only country flags

• Tempe, Arizona, United States
• Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
• Brixen, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Italy
• Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Windsor, Ontario, Canada
• [no flagicon available] Qamdo, Tibet, China

Daicaregos (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideally since this is primarily an item of local importance, local representation should take first place. I've noticed some articles using town emblem instead of or as well as any Flag. for instance:

•  – Orléans, France (1946)
•  – Zadar, Croatia (1959)
•  – Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany (1962)
• File:Alexandria VA seal.png - Alexandria, Virginia, United States (1974)
• 23px – Nablus, Palestinian Authority (1980)

or

• -  – Orléans, France (1946)
• -  – Zadar, Croatia (1959)
• -  – Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany (1962)
• - File:Alexandria VA seal.png - Alexandria, Virginia, United States (1974)
• - 23px – Nablus, Palestinian Authority (1980)

From Dundee

However I have reservations about the original discussion that sparked this question, Yes, national level icon is important but within WP we already have exceptions that relate to which nation of the UK an individual is identified with hence WP:UKNATIONALS can be considered when dealing with WP:MOS. For that reason I would say that a similar consideration for WP:MOSICON should be made, and the Welsh Flag should be used in relation to Swansea - whether that can or should be extended to other similar cities depends on the case by case basis. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this topic, I feel it would be good to get a solution once and for all. I personally feel your second example is correct, with exception of having the Welsh flag instead of the union flag in regards to Swansea. The facts on the ground are that, in cultural exchanges, the countries which form the united kingdom seem to refer to their respective country rather than the union. The countries which make up the UK are not 'Subnational' as you state... Ask any kid from England which country won the world cup in 1966 they're unlikely to say 'no country won... it's was a sub national entity'.

Looking at Mannheim's own website [20] it has Swansea specifically listed in Wales (not the united kingdom). It's unlikely that they would have done this without first asking the relevant authority in Swansea who agreed. There are numerous examples of this on various government websites in many different countries. If websites reflecting democratically elected governments list the twinnings like this, why should we add our own individual political agendas to the corresponding wiki article? --Richardeast (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)