Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

WT:MOSICONWT:MOSICON

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
	This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Nobel icon discussion
Archive 0 – Jan 2007, pre-MOSFLAG

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 4.

List of individual recipients of film awards

On several articles listing recipients of film awards I recently removed the flag icons (for example here on "Silver Bear for Best Director"), which was promptly reverted (for example here) by Martineden83 (talk · contribs). Obviously at least one of us has misunderstood MOS:FLAGS. My question is, could we make this Manual of Style more clear? Or is it already sufficiently clear what the guideline recommends in cases like these? Gabbe (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification, these festival award pages for individual winners have flag icons for many many years, multiple users and editors agree with "my" point of view of MOS:FLAGS. Martineden83 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the articles have had flag icons for a long time does not prove that this is in accordance with the guidelines. It could just be that the editors simply haven't heard of the guidelines and are unaware of what they recommend. See WP:CONTENTAGE for more on this.

Let me expand on why I think the flag icons are not in agreement with the guidelines. The purpose of these articles is to list the individuals who have received the award. For that reason, the name of the person who won, the year they won, and the work for which they won, these are all directly relevant. Other biographical details about them are not directly relevant. Their gender, birthyear, citizenship status, sexual orientation, religion. These are some of the things we could chose to place an icon of next to their names. But, according to the guidelines, we shouldn't. Adding a flag next to the names in the article "Silver Bear for Best Director" seems to me like a pretty clear example of MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The nationality of these people is not more relevant than, for example, their gender, birthyear, religion, etc.

Which gets me back to my original question: Since it is clear to me what these guidelines recommend, but a disagreement has nevertheless arisen, is there some way to clarify the guidelines further? Gabbe (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does prove the point, multiple editors have been contributing in the pages and this discussion was never raised.

You know its crazy comparing a flag with gender or sexual orientation.

Note that the flags were added only in INDIVIDUAL festival award pages, such as Best Screenplay or Acting categories.

If we distort MOS:FLAGCRUFT like that, we would have do delete the flags in the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film and its multiple co-related pages. Which will never happen.

Again, note that main festival award pages, e.g.: Palme d'Or, Grand Prix or third places awards, do not have flags, because following MOS: FLAGS its an unfair use of nationality tools in the "Production Country" section of the tables.

Overall, this discussion should be held in the festival's talk page, where regular contributors would be able to share their opinions. Martineden83 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martineden83: Wikipedia does not have moderators. It has editors, and both you and I are editors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy Award for Best International Feature Film is a case where there is a direct relationship between the films and the countries they represent. Adding flag icons in that situation is not in violation of MOS:FLAGS as far as I can see. I haven't suggested removing the flags from that page. I am talking about articles such as Silver Bear for Best Director, where there is no such direct relationship between the award and the country where the recipient is a citizen. It is for this latter case where MOS:FLAGCRUFT seems applicable, not the first.

I can certainly add a note inviting people to this discussion to the talk pages of the festivals. Since the underlying issue (namely, if the guideline is sufficiently clear) does not just concern one film festival, it seems more suitable to me to have the discussion in one place. Gabbe (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, you have to show sources that the awards actually use the flags in their lists of winners. It has to be used in sources and pertinent info. I don't see the Berlin Festival using flags. I don't see sources like Variety Magazine or Hollywood Reporter even mentioning the country let alone the flags. Many articles at Wikipedia wrongly use flag icons. Those flags must also be used in sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was funny, why would Variety and THR determine any of our decisions here? Festival official pages always pointed out nationalities. If many articles use "wrongly flag icons", while multiple editors agreeing in its use, maybe the problem is not the flag or the articles.

Please read my comment above. Martineden83 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use them because they are also legitimate sources and we try to use those rather than primary sources. We look at all the sources. Can you provide the ones that show flags for the winners? That would help your case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP is a work in progress and there is no deadline to improvement. Also, we don't need to know all of the style rules to edit, because eventually, someone will come along and fix it. MOS:DECORATION states: Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation [emphasis added]. The guidance also states: The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. In the example given by the OP [1], flags are being used in a table without the name being given in text adjacent to use. If the text was added in that example, then the flag would not be serving a purpose of additional useful information. The flag would be redundant with respect to the text. The exampled use is contrary to MOS:FLAGS/MOS:ICON - without question. We also consider WP:CONLEVEL and WP:CONTENTAGE. The actions of editors in a group of articles does not override the broader community consensus documented in P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a correct use of flags.

American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration ThanksDoug Weller talk 14:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller, I presume that you are referring to use in the infobox, which uses Template: Infobox civil conflict. This is covered by MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS which directs to MOS:MILFLAGS for further detail. Essentially, flags should only be used if there is more than two belligerents in total (one belligerent per column) and flags identify information across more than one section of the infobox. In this case, the flags differentiate Denmark and Iceland in the left column. To that extent, the flags are being used correctly. However, Iceland is part of Denmark in a way similar to Alaska and the US. Infoboxes are not intended for, or suitable for detail or nuance. The question arising is, should we be making such a distinction in the infobox by listing Denmark and Iceland separately? If the answer is no, then we shouldn't be using flags there. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: I'm sure you meant Denmark and Greenland. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Duh (headslap) - of course I did. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 Not that it changes the essence of what you say (because Denmark retains responsibility for foreign and military affairs) but no, Greenland is not part of Denmark like Alaska and the [rest of the] US. A closer parallel for US readers might be Puerto Rico? Greenland is one of the three constituent, semi-autonomous, countries of the Kingdom of Denmark (the other two are Denmark and the Faroes). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Most Americans don't know Puerto Ricans are born with full and equal U.S. citizenship, and a confusing "homeland" notion clouds clear thinking about flags and political entities. A better comparison for the English speaking community might be Japan and Okinawa. Do we want to see flag of Okinawa in a bunch of infoboxes next to flags of Japan? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dutch–Portuguese War#Flags in infobox

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by LucyGermanDog

Please see User talk:LucyGermanDog#Infobox flags and edits adding or readding flags to infobox - eg [2] and [3]. Are these appropriate uses? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox

Please see the subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]