Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17

Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Flagicons in Triple J Hottest 100 lists

I came across the Triple J Hottest 100 yearly lists (see Category:Triple J Hottest 100) and noticed that they used flagicons in a country of origin column in a table and also in a section farther down the articles in sections titled "Country represented." There are 36 of these lists and over the past two months I was removing them about one a day, partly because it was a bit of work and also if there were any objections, they could be dealt with earlier rather than later. Even though these lists are a mixture of singers and bands, I used the edit summary, "Removed flagicons per WP:FLAGBIO." Although I was not sure if the entire column was necessary, I only removed the flagicons, so the country information was still in the articles (see my version of the 2020 list, [1].) I finished the last on July 31, and then three days later, User:Effluvium1, reverted 34 of them, missing 1989, 1990 and Albums (this one only had flagicons in the infobox), with edit summaries of " there is nothing in WP:FLAGBIO that is relevant to this article". Since this concerns 36 different articles, I thought a discussion here would get more input then anywhere else.

The flag icons are clearly being used to show that they are representing their countries due to the "Country represented" sections. But this is not a singing competition where singers/bands are officially representing their countries, these are annual user polls of what they think are the best songs of the year. Template:Infobox musical artist states that flagicons three different times "Do not add a flag icon.", so if flagicons cannot be used in biographical articles about singers/bands, then why would there use be acceptable in a list of singers/bands? I could find no other examples of music lists using flagicons in their articles, which would show there is a consensus that their use in these situations is not accepted. Aspects (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your removal of the flags were correct; this isn't like Eurovision where the bands are representing counties, but simply noting the origin of where the song came from, which is not an official recognition of nationality. --Masem (t) 00:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I was perplexed when I visited one of the Triple J H100 pages recently (which I do often because there is regular vandalism at play), only to find that not only were the flagicons were removed, but also the green background denoting Australian artists was removed also. This made for a very sterile and displeasing viewing experience - the pages were easier to view as a whole due to the coloured background for Australian artists. Triple J are very proud to honour the endeavours and overall popularity of home-grown Australian talent on their lists, and users who view their lists on wikipedia for ease-of-access if nothing else, use the coloured background like a proverbial pie-chart for the table as a whole.
Now, I realise that the table is sortable, but it still isn't as pleasing to the eye as it was before the flagicons/backgrounds were removed. As far as the argument goes that no other EOY song polls use flagicons in their articles, refer to the outside link [1] which is a database of all the H100 polls, and they use flagicons in their lists, however it hasn't been around as long as the wikipedia articles.
As an avid H100 follower and as someone who has had some influence in the maintenance of some of the list arcitles (the 2014 list in particular), my opinion is if this really does need to descend into bureaucratical warfare over whether flagicons are appropriate or not, then you've kind of missed the whole point of why the articles exist in the first place. I implore you to leave the lists as they are, as they have been for over 12 years now. If it absolutely MUST be amended, then fine, whatever, but PLEASE leave the green backgrounds intact. Effluvium1 (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Given that the list is based on an Australian entity, it is fine to include the green background to highlight Australia's entries, but the flag use is completely out of line with MOSFLAG. --Masem (t) 05:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The green backgrounds are at odds with MOS:COLOR. Moreover why does Australia need to be double highlighted (originally even triple)? I mean the word "Australia" is already present in those rows to state the obvious.Tvx1 13:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I would agree at first blush, the secondary indicator for Aus. isn't really needed, but I think it is fair that a proper green (per those given in MOS:COLOR) is useful to quickly tell approximately how many of the songs are from Aus. or not. There's no harm in that second indictor as long as the Country column is present and country names given. But the flags still overwhelm that, do match with the use of flag icons, and thus should still be removed. --Masem (t) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://hottest100.org/hottest100s.html

Flagicons in cities, counties, etc.

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy, what should I depreciate the use of flag infobox for any settlements, but it's not required to put a flag on {{Infobox settlement}}, where should they requests for comment anyway? --49.150.110.214 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:Flags, MOS:Sovereignflag, MOS:Flagrelevance wrt some countries

The wording of these MOSs would have to be tweaked for the case of some countries which are not themselves sovereign but, e.g., have their own teams in international sport events or their own representations in international organisations. This has long been the practice across Wikipedia but these MOSs have failed to put this in clear terms. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Looking at it (current permalink), I've been tempted to remove the clear repetition of the text above:

As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others.

On a second thought, if we remove this, the paragraph may start looking like it's about allowance and not about deprecation ("However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon ...").

Meanwhile I choose to change nothing as the lesser evil. But what do you think we can do about this?

What's that, anyway: "competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport"? Used where and by whom? Certainly, every flag is used by someone somewhere, but what does it have to do with English Wikipedia? I'd perhaps suggest removing this whole paragraph altogether, and I'll do this if there's no reasonable objections in a reasonable time (say, more than a week). — Mike Novikoff 23:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support removeing this paragrapgh. It is competely redundent - the rest of the section is "Flags should only be used if...", so what is the point of saying flags are discouraged? SSSB (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
It is repetitive, but what is the actual harm of having this information repeated? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
One of the major points of MoS is to avoid redundancy, and for good reason: no informational text should have more than is necessary to express the information. (Cf. MOS:OVERLINKING and MOS:REPEATLINK for example, MOS:REDUNDANCY too.) Wordiness generally doesn't help understand the information better, but contrariwise: it just lowers the signal-to-noise ratio. — Mike Novikoff 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hang on, I've misunderstood. I was under the impression that "the entire paragrapgh" was what you had quoted, not that you had quoted merely a part of that paragraph. SSSB (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that I've restored the pre-dispute version - if some of the text should be kept/moved to a different position that should be discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It was discussed. There was just a misunderstanding on the extent of what to be removed. It’s resolved now.Tvx1 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Since this was escalated. How are we going to move forward? I support removing the repetive part that was directly quoted and highlighted here, but not the part the unique part dealing with flags in the infoboxes of sportspeople taking part in major international competitions.Tvx1 22:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No-one going to bring more input here? Can we restore the version without the repitition, but with the sentence about sportspeople then?Tvx1 14:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Which specific version are you wanting to restore, and what do you see as the benefit of that version over the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The version that was reverted by GiantSnowman. I think it’s benefit is that it removed excessive repetition on one hand and puts the information worth kerping in more suitable place.Tvx1 21:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB, Nikkimaria, Tvx1, and GiantSnowman: I guess Tvx1 talks about this version, and I'll agree that at the very least we should stick to this one. It's just a copyedit that addresses the first part of my proposal: to eliminate the repetition marked with bright yellow above. With my present approval, it does seem to have a consensus. (Another question is whether we'll move any further from there, but let's fix this one first.) — Mike Novikoff 17:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I support the adoption of the revision Tvx1 talks about. SSSB (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop the edit warring on the project page. I just issued a warning to User:Tvx1 because they have reverted edits three times in the past 24 hours. I note that User:Mike Novikoff has reverted edits twice in the past 24 hours. Settle this here on the talk page. - Donald Albury 18:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I have reverted to the last version from September, before the recent edit war. If any body changes this without clear consensus and/or engages in edit warring, then blocks will follow. GiantSnowman 18:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There really is no need to use such threatening language. As I said it was a misunderstanding. We can settle this like adult people.Tvx1 21:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It was an over-reaction, but this is no ordinary article. This is a MOS article. It does look like it was all a mistake in removing a sentence no one had agreed to remove. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment?

Any consensus regarding flags in military personnel, ethnicity, settlement and among others? --49.150.116.127 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Football league infoboxes

@ArnabSaha, GiantSnowman, Mike Novikoff, Donald Albury, and ArsenalFan700: The infoboxflags of Premier League and Ligue 1 are present, of which the Premier League is even a featured article! When I (and other editors) try to include infoboxflags in other association football leagues, some users are stating about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and also about WP:Other things exist, where in the later article it is clearly written: "While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." What are your views in this case? Laser Victor 2017 ❯❯❯ talk 09:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the flags displayed in those two articles are purely decorative, as it is made very clear at the top of the articles what countries those leagues are in. One or two examples may "prove" the rule (in the original sense of "test" the rule), but I think it will take a lot more than those two articles to establish that it is general practice to include infoflagboxes in such articles. - Donald Albury 12:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to remove the flags from those articles. GiantSnowman 19:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm third to remove them. Flag icons, be it in infoboxes or elsewhere, are so notorious that I'd just kill them all. — Mike Novikoff 17:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag template in list of countries

Is is okay to use the {{flag}} template in a list of countries inside an article? For instance here (and the related discussion in the talk page).

Several Wikipedia:Featured lists use it (e.g., List of countries without armed forces, Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Member states of the United Nations, etc.) and this use doesn't fall into any of the "Inappropriate use[s]" listed ("Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", "Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available", "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance", "Do not use supranational flags without direct relevance", "Do not rewrite history", "Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles", "Do not use flags on disambiguation pages") so it seems okay to me. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I gave some optional choices on the discussion page you linked to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Flags in tables of national subdivisions

This query comes in the context of a discussion going on at Talk:Republics_of_Russia#Question_about_Table. In that article there is a table listing the republics of Russia, which previously included the republics' flags. User:Thrakkx has removed the flags, citing this policy, but I'm not clear why it should apply here, since it seems very normal for wiki to include the flags of national/sub-national entities in lists of them

In discussion, I cited U.S. state, Federative units of Brazil, List of states of Mexico (coats of arms, since Mexican states don't have flags), States of Germany (in the map), States of Austria (in the map), Cantons of Switzerland (and coats of arms), States and territories of Australia, States and federal territories of Malaysia, States of the Federated States of Micronesia, States of Palau, States of Venezuela, Autonomous communities of Spain. User:Thrakkx's position seems to be that all of these are violations of this part of the MOS. Are they? Furius (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Addendum: In fact, Thrakkx has now gone through and removed the flags from tables in most of those articles) Furius (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Like I said in the referenced discussion, Furius is arguing "these articles do this, so this policy must not apply", which is a long-debunked discussion point. The argument they have not mentioned here is that the flags are supposedly encyclopedic. I disagree. This recent MOS discussion on a related topic (flags in navboxes) came to the conclusion that the flags were purely decorative. I don't see how the flags listed in navboxes is any different than listing the flags in every single possible table and list.
I did remove the flags/coats of arms from all of the above examples not to undermine Furius, but because the MOS and its many interpretations are clear: they do not belong on those pages, either. Thrakkx (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that having the flag in the template/infobox of a single state/region/entity is totally different from including them in a table listing all the states/regions/entities and that you have unilaterally extended things beyond what the MOS discussion dealt with. Having had it flagged to you that users considered this a controversial change, you went ahead and extended it to a range of other articles anyway. That is acting in bad faith. Furius (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a controversial change to you, not to the several protected template editors I've made requests to, not to the editors who've said nothing as I removed flags, not to the editors who've agreed with me in discussions like this one, and not to the editors who developed the icon consensuses on this page. If we all had to stop editing the entire wiki when one editor disagrees with us, then the wiki wouldn't exist. Thrakkx (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It was opposed by all contributors at Talk:Republics_of_Russia#Question_about_Table and templates and tables are different things. Furius (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur. Creepershark77 (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Thrakkx. Adding flags to those tables is not providing encyclopedic information in the table's context, it's just decorating them. Nor is it an aid to navigation, since these places are not commonly represented by just flags and abbreviations in the news, etc. (Contrast this with the Olympics and FIFA, where flags alone or flags and abbreviations are very commonly used to identify national competitors, making their use in sports-related tables more directly relevant.) The place to find out what the flag of the Chuvash Republic looks like is in the article Chuvash Republic. The fact that some other non-sport articles are also misusing decorative flags does not make for an argument to extend flag-abuse everywhere (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); rather, it makes for a list of other pages to clean up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag icons on pages of streaming services

Some time ago, flag icons were being used in the "launch" section of pages of streaming services such as Disney+. They were removed with the reasoning of falling under WP:ICONDECORATION. However, in my opinion they "serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension", as the MoS mentions. What's your opinion on that? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Would still be inappropriate. Nothing about the launches have strong national ties that would necessitate flag icons, since the concern is that when used, they are suggestion a endorsed govt relationship. --Masem (t) 23:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, where is the govt relationship here, for example? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Govt declared official languages.Tvx1 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Levantine Arabic is definitely not an official language here in Germany. And to that other point: Why does the launch in a country not have national ties? It's just like with languages spoken in a country. The service has become accessible there now, just like a language is spoken there. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Because the launches are purely geographic. They aren’t politically national. There is no nationalism involved whatsoever.Tvx1 12:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair. I still believe the other way would look way better and would make it way easier for the reader to get an overview but fine I guess. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The entire reason this guideline exists and is so against willy-nilly use of flags and other icons is because someone always "believe[s] the [decorated] way would look better". If no one did, there would never have arisen a need to address icon abuse in a guideline, since there would be no icon abuse. The fact that you're in the class of editors to whom this guideline is directed is not an argument for your position and against the guideline but rather the opposite.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Flags in honours lists

Is it against the guidelines to use flags in lists of honours received? For example, Queen Rania of Jordan#Honours, Lyudmila Putina#Honours and medals, Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland#Honours. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Er,no! How would it be? Tvx1 09:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It serves a decorative not informative or navigational purpose. Read the guideline. Read the threads on this page. Read the archives.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
And just how is this purely decorative?? That's nothing but your personal opinion. These honours directly represent the sovereign states that award them. There is more than enough relevance here.Tvx1 14:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
See WP:FLAGCRUFT and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE. You need to actually read and understand the guideline, and stop just relexively advocating for all inclusion of all flags. "I wonder what the flag of Brunei looks like?" is not a relevant question to ask at Queen Rania of Jordan#Honours. The flag has nothing to do with the subject of the article (a person) or the section (an award).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sub-national flags used in lists of national beauty pageant contestants

An editor has said that I'm editing against consensus when removing sub-national flags as here. I've gotten thanks from other editors for the same practice. The use of the icons is contrary to my understanding of MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE. What is the opinion of this group of editors on the use of flag icons in such lists of pageant representatives? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

These contestants directly represent these states. So relevancy can certainly be claimed here.Tvx1 22:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Flags are a representation of these states, and by removing these subflags because of MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE does not make sense AT ALL. Most editors would agree, that even for a very long time, even the veteran ones, that subflags in beauty pageant articles are RELEVANT, and should not be removed. Beyond that, there shouldn't be any discussion or consensus about it. Jesteron27 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Representation = Relevance

And you've done this complaint numerous times, which I began questioning, I mean, what are you trying to defend here? At least it ain't vandalized. Jesteron27 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a relevant use of flags. Pageants are not sports, and subnational divisions in pageant coverage are not routinely in the media reduced to flags and abbreviations, so these icons are not serving a navigational purpose, they're just decoration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I haven't read the guideline in detail, but I don't remember that a condition for the use of flags was sport. I thought the condition was to do with representation (per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE) - which the pageant appears to have (one person per state). (This doesn't mean I agree with the use of flags here, I just think that part of your arguement is flawed.) The biggest issue I have with the flags in Miss Teen USA 2022 is that they are completely redundent, they don't provide any additional relevant information as each flag is accompanied by the state's name. If you've got the state name already, the flag is just decoration. SSSB (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
A condition of flag use is not sport; but sport usage sometimes provides for relaxed usage rules due to the frequency with which broadcast usage will reduce countries to just flags with three-letterisms, providing something of a recognizability/navigation justification to using them in sport tables on WP. That doesn't apply to pageants; it's an unavailable excuse to pepper articles with flag decoration (but sport articles' usage was clearly the inspiration for doing this to pageant articles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't watch many beauty pageants... do they always show the contestant's flag now? When I watched in my youth I don't recall "Miss Mississippi" coming out and the tv showing the flag. When I look at websites like Miss America or Miss Teen USA they don't use state flags, so if the competitions don't use the flags why would we? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This here. Compared to, say, auto racing, marathon runners. And tennis, where flags are nearly constantly used with competitors implying they are representing their country, beauty parents do not use that approach. Masem (t) 21:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not even the biggest fan of flags in sports articles, but this doesn't even meet that bar. Flagcruft. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I advocate use of flags (national flags) in certain sports articles, but this is a bridge too far. Flags in the case of beauty pageants, particularly sub-national flags, is just bunting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I didn't even see country flags at the official Miss Universe website either, nor in press articles that list those winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Miss Universe is just one pageant amongst many. Please look at the official website for Miss World (the longest-existing international pageant): Link. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Those are all national flags (with possibly the sole exception of Macau). That's not germane to my question about the use of sub-national flags. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
It should go without saying that if it's not appropriate to include national flags in this subject, it's not appropriate to include subnational ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost all the arguments brought here against the flags are nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now matter how you turn it, these people actually directly represent these states, so using these flags in that article is not against the guidelines.Tvx1 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, WP:FLAGCRUFT isn't a IDONTLIKEIT argument. But MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE specifically says not to use these flags. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
None of these apply here. Flagcruft talks about nationalities, which this discussion does not. And even if it id, there IS good reason here. These people directly represent these states. And FLAGRELEVANCE telling not to use them, doesn’t apply here either, because there quite patently IS relevance here. Tvx1 16:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed per Tvx1 { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
They are not representing the states/countries in any type of official capacity. They simply have come from those states or countries. Masem (t) 01:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but pageant contestants are selected through state pageants as official representatives of their states/regions/etc. Yeah, they aren't appointed by their governments, but it is far more than "they simply come from those states or countries," there is a hierarchal process that involves several levels of competition, and official representation. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
MOS:FLAGS does not request official representation. Tvx1 20:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, no one reading a list of pageant contestants is visually searching by flag, because they were not subjected to a flag-only or flag-plus-abbreviation listing on their TV screen. And no one can reasonably be asking "What is the flag of [state name here]?" when reading such a list.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There’s no way you can know that. That’s just your opinion.Tvx1 19:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Note I said "reasonably", i.e. sensibly in the context. I've already addressed this exact thing with you before just above [2]. You need to actually read what editors respond to you with, and adjust, instead of just recycling the same broken arguments thread after thread in WP:ICANTHEARYOU fashion. See also MOS:OVERLINK, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and various other guidelines also predicated on in-context relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Why on earth are you scolding me for a reply from four months ago? Tvx1 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Because we're still reading here, in an unarchived thread, and I just now noticed that you were engaged in a WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern that was worth addressing, lest it recur yet again in another thread later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there are far too many flags. Everything seems to be a contest between nations. We should grow up.Tony (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to right your percieved great wrongs. Tvx1 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
How we use flag icons on WP is not a RGW issue, its how to make the work look professional and accessible. Masem (t) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the "great wrong" would be - in this case it could be us using flags when sources don't, could be us trying to "fix" something. We should be trying to limit our flag usage, not increasing it Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Further emphasis?

This edit of mine that tried to demonstrate the emphasis of inline flag icons to the fullest degree got reverted by GiantSnowman. The user talk discussion still resulted in disagreement so I'm taking this here. Any thoughts? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It is already too editorialised as it is. The sections shows an opinion, but presents it as fact.Tvx1 19:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We used the flag with {{!xt}} at MOS:NOICONS. Why can't we demonstrate it there? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC); edited 20:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
WP doesn't use background colors that way. It's an accessibility problem, and the passage is already overemphasized (albeit on purpose).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Flags in ethnicity infoboxes

I purpose the removal of flags from ethnicity infoboxes that may cause MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The recent example what I removed flags from {{Infobox ethnic group}} for Indian people, by replacing {{Flag}} to piped link for example, [[Indian Americans|United States]] should be in place. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons. Although the raw !vote counts are essentially the same, the strength of the arguments clearly lies with the opposition. As was repeated in some fashion in almost every oppose, we are writing for a general audience for which the small colored icon will not communicate any context or meaning. This was also mentioned in the comment by Imede. This provides strength to the argument that the icons would essentially be WP:DECOR. The argument that many BJJ practitioners are MMA fighters with ranks in multiple systems/styles and the icons would lead to significant clutter is also persuasive, and undercuts the support argument that Judo has such colored icons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


Notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) people currently use Template:Infobox martial artist which does not recommend nor proscribe the use of rank icons. The template BJJRank provides an icon to visually indicates the belt level, it is currently used in 135 infoboxes of individuals who have achieved notability in Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ).

Example with and without (from the Royce Gracie article):

  • | rank =      7th deg. BJJ coral belt
  • | rank = Red and black 7th deg. BJJ coral belt

Rationale & discussion about allowing BJJRank icon in the infobox of notable BJJ practitioners:

  1. Provides the reader a quick visual cue about a practitioner's expertise, a key fact for martial artists
  2. Allows greater abbreviation and therefore helps keeping infoboxes tidy
  3. Has been used by Infobox judoka, a closely related martial art, since 2012 (examples: 1 2 3)
  4. Recommended by Infobox sportsperson to "indicate belt colour for martial artists."
  5. Brings consistency between related infoboxes
  6. For MMA fighter helps quickly identify if they came from BJJ

This question relates to discussions at:

Talk:Kron Gracie#Rfc

User_talk:Nswix#Colour_box

Notifications:

  1. talk:Manual of Style
  2. talk:Infobox martial artist
  3. talk:WikiProject Martial arts
  4. talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts
  5. talk:Kron Gracie

Survey

  • YES, BJJRank helps readers identify a key fact at a glance in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it brings consistency between related infoboxes and by presenting information in shorter form helps not to clutter infoboxes (for example removing the need to describe coral belts as red-and-black or red-and-white). Judo and BJJ share the same origin and use a similar rank system. Lewolka (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • YES. I've created {{Infobox judoka}} specifically to bring consistency to judoka articles in areas such as displayed ranks, among others. That is the reason for the rank & dan being so much more automated in Infobox judoka, in comparison to {{Infobox sportsperson}} on which it is based. Naturally I'll support such an addition to {{Infobox martial artist}}, with an added parameter to identify the martial art. Perhaps the rank templates themselves should be edited to be more automated in that case, but that is anouther discussion. CLalgo (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE it is better with words instead or colour box as it is easy for non-bjj readers to understand the rankings systems which would be confusion as other combat sport have different colors rankings systems especiall the it belt ranking have 2 combinations colour plus the strips. Keep it simply for all readers. Cassiopeia talk 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    That could be easily solved by having the "Rank" field link to the article relevant to the specific martial art ranks' article. CLalgo (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Cassiopeia The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article not to provide an explanation, the less information it contains, the more effective. If a reader needs to understand a particular belt, they can follow a link from the body text such as: "Royce Gracie is a 7th degree black and red coral belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu." If "non-bjj readers" are confused because other combat sports use different colour ranking systems, they can follow the same link, in this case Brazilian jiu-jitsu ranking system. Lewolka (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Lewolka and Clalgo:, Not many reader would click on link just to understand the details of the colour boxes and every combat sport has its own colour codes for belt and if you look at Karate it is very confusing with so many different colour and their combinations. Even for combat sport fans, especially the mma readers who are a little bit more knowldege then other reader who only like certain sport would not know all the color belt for different sport and that not to mention for general reader. However, every reader would understand if a number stated and colour code in text in for the belt and not many bjj practitioners have 7th black belt with read coral belt as almost 99 percents of them are white to black belt. Keep it simple for the general readers. Cassiopeia talk 21:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
    • This RfC is about adding a Rank icon to Brazilian jiu-jitsu people not to every martial art. The Template:BJJRank is similar to Template:JudoRank as they share a similar rank system. Judo clearly shows that this can be done without problem. Lewolka (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @Cassiopeia: I'm sorry, but your point just isn't valid, for more than one reason. First, this RfC is not about MMA fighters specifically but about bjj practitioners in general. You can't judge the whole group by the subset. Second, even for MMA fighters, the cyrrent state isn't as you've claimed. For example, Alex Pereira's infobox just states Black belt in Kickboxing, Brown belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu without an "understandable number" stated. The same is true for Amanda Nunes's infobox that states Black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Brown belt in Judo. Both don't even link to the relevant article about the ranks of the specific martial art. This could be easily solved by amending the ranks templates and infobox template to provide clearer information, including numerical, and targeted links to relevant information. Done right, it will even make editing easier and provide a more consistent, informative look to all relevant articles. CLalgo (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • However, it does not limit to bjj practitioners but any martial artist who practice bjj which including MMA fighters and all their ranks in any martial arts discipline they practice, and any editor will use it as they want if the RFC gone ahead and we have a lot of pages and edits to due with especially those do not provide sources which are very common. Not a good idea and keep it simple. Cassiopeia talk 07:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Cassiopeia not “any martial artist who practice bjj” and "any martial arts discipline they practice" but, as clearly stated in the opening statement of this RfC: “individuals who have achieved notability in Brazilian jiu-jitsu” ie per Wikipedia:Notability (sports): “sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.” Despite Nedochan’s bizarre statement that would include (in addition to the legend of the sport, pioneers, famous coaches..etc) people who have medalled at black level at major BJJ championships such as: IBJJF World, European, Pan, World No-Gi, Brazilian National; Abu Dhabi World Pro and Abu Dhabi Grand Slam plus ADCC World and national championships and trials. Regarding the crossover with MMA, at the moment the Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners who have competed in MMA represents a total of 33 articles, most of which already have the Rank icon. Lewolka (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Those achievements are in the achievements section in the body text supported by source. We are talking about icon colours for belts and do remember, not only the bjj practitioner do bjj these days, MMA fighters do many different disciplines which the minimum requirements for elite fighter are ground (grappling), stand up (strike and kicks) and some wrestling skills. Cassiopeia talk 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    It seems you're missing the point a bit. Why should BJJ notability and belts be the only ones for MMA fighters to show with colour boxes? Lots of MMA fighters have been notable in other sports, hence the way we use the style parameter, which indicates an MMA fighter who's competed notably in other disciplines. You're talking about adding a BJJ colour box to MMA fighters who have achieved notability in BJJ. We're saying that would create a lot of clutter as regards MMA infoboxes. Assuming the fighter in question is a BJJ pro and known very much on account of that, go ahead. That's already the case. Royce is a good example. You have to add 'legends of the sport' above as you've figured out that Royce's notability is obviously not on account of his BJJ. It's due to his having won three of the first four major MMA tournaments. A BJJ fighter becoming an MMA legend doesn't make that fighter a BJJ only article. As you know, Royce does not have international or professional BJJ competition record on his profile.
    I'm afraid the solution is simple. Carry on as is. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Cassiopeia not "bjj practitioner who do bjj" but “Individuals who have achieved notability in Brazilian jiu-jitsu”! Only 33 fighters have been identified so far as being notable BJJ athletes who have transitioned to MMA, all these articles have already been updated so basically this changes nothing for you and will not result in "massive amount of work", not sure why you keep insisting. Lewolka (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE There are relatively few BJJ practitioners who have the notability required to have an article about them. Most BJJ stylists achieve notability on account of MMA. In MMA infoboxes, we don't use colour boxes, as fighters with multiple belts would end up having infoboxes cluttered with a load of colours. It would also mean having to add colour boxes to to thousands of articles and add no information that isn't there already. In those instances where the BJJ practitioner is notable for their BJJ, like Gordon Ryan or someone, then that's OK, but in the case of someone like Royce Gracie, who is the original 'Ultimate Fighter', then his article should be like all the other MMA fighter infoboxes. We also have the 'style' parameter that we use to show fighters who have competed p[rofessionally or internationally in other disciplines. IN the case of Royce, he has no notable BJJ achievements and no pro fights listed. His notability is based on his MMA career. He is a BJJ-based MMA fighter, so his style parameter says GJJ.

    Also worth noting that the colour boxes don't actually add any info, so the whole thing seems pointless to me. There really aren't that many grapplers who have achieved notability purely on account of their grappling, so I don't object to those having a colour box, but there are hundreds of BJJ fighters who have become notable for MMA, so having a colour box for BJJ but not for karate, for instance, wouldn't work. So then you'd need a colour box for every belt that they had, which would result in a massive amount of work and the only thing we'd have to show for it would be a load of clutter.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

    I think it's incoherent to consider Royce Gracie to not be a notable BJJ practitioner for not having any notable BJJ achievements, when his first fight in the UFC in 1993 predated the very existence of the IBJJF in 2002 and ADCC in 1998. He is a literal pioneer of BJJ -- one of the main reasons that it's even possible for "notable BJJ achievements" to happen. Unknown (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    None of that makes the fact that he doesn't have notable BJJ only achievements untrue. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    This is a failing of the notability *criteria* though, not a lack of notability in BJJ. The criteria disregard the origins of BJJ in the old Vale Tudo matches, where BJJ fighters would take on other schools such as boxers, karateka, judoka, etc. Does it make sense to not have "notable" fights prior to this arbitrary set of tournaments in a style that has existed for around a hundred years? Also, Royce is a 7th degree coral belt which IMO is in itself a notable BJJ-specific achievement (although maybe not by Wiki standards?). Unknown (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Unknown: We do not have a criteria for BJJ yet so that unique requirement of BJJ only achievements does not exist, we follow Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (people)..etc we can navigate those using common sense... it’s pretty straight forward. Lewolka (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Being a pioneer and kick start the bjj in western world is one thing which no one could refute but being having a "said" notable competition achievement is another. Cassiopeia talk 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Cassiopeia: This is such a weird debate, as pointed out it by @Unknown Royce Gracie precedes the existence of international BJJ competitions so looking for results is pointless. Per WP:NBIO People are likely to be notable if "the person has a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field”, which as you say "no one could refute". At the end of the day he’s a legend of both MMA and BJJ. Without him both would be completely different, countless sources will back that up but this is not really the topic here. Lewolka (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • YES, I think it's useful and more consistent to have one way of displaying rank across all locations. Unknown (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. If it's good enough for judoka, it's good enough for BJJ practitioners. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

BJJ fighters already have colour boxes. Ones who are notable for MMA dont.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Can someone explain the relevance of the icon? I get that in martial arts the skill/level is denoted by a colour of a belt, but is it specifically important that we show this? Does a black rectangle really bring out more information than the word black? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The icon provides a quick visual cue of a practitioner's level, see Yvonne Duarte instead of Royce Gracie, in addition to black there is also red and black, red and white and red. Lewolka (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact remain, 95% or more fighters have belt from white to black and no significant even you have stripes especially for elite fighters who merit a page in Wikipedia. Word is better than icon as hardly anyone know the colour code (I am a bjj practitioner myslef and know most ppl dont know the different unless they are a bjj practitioner themselves). Keep it simple for general readers. Cassiopeia talk 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia: As I have explained before this is about “individuals who have achieved notability in Brazilian jiu-jitsu” but you seem to be ignoring this fact even though it’s in the title of this RfC and I have posted a list of championships previously. Only 33 MMA fighters have been found to have transitioned to MMA after a successful black belt career at the highest level. That is not that many, see this category.
Having the Rank icon allows notable BJJ athletes who have transitioned to be immediately identified. Such as Fabrício Werdum who is one of the greatest BJJ champion but not notable for his accomplishments in Judo or Muay Thai. Lewolka (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Why should readers only get a 'quick visual clue' for BJJ belts? Fighters who are notable due to their BJJ competition experience already have colour boxes. Just like Judo players do.
The question itself is a bit disingenuous imo. What's really being proposed is a BJJ exclusive addition to martial arts infoboxes. I can say with certainty that that would be a massive amount of effort to carry out for absolutely no discernible benefit other than compromising NPOV. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Precisely. The info is already there, as are the colour boxes in notable single discipline martial arts pages. My own objection centres on MMA fighters and their propensity to have several belts. Also, this proposal doesn't consider the fact that there is already a way we show MMA fighters who have notable experience, which is the style parameter.
If this proposal were supported, it'd mean that BJJ based MMA fighters had a single colour box reflecting BJJ only, which would be inconsistent, or colour boxes for every difference, which would be a chaotic and laborious way of duplicating the words and the style parameter. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
     7th deg. BJJ coral belt means literally nothing to the casual reader. It's jargon. I'd support removing these icons and have it written in English Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
it's jargon either way "black and red coral belt in jiu-jitsu" and "white and red coral belt in jiu-jitsu" does not improve on that, but both method can be link to an article about ranking. The icon adds a quicker way to describe the belt level and colour, bring consistency between articles, without taking space in the infobox, just like it's done for judo a closely associated martial art to BJJ with a similar ranking system. Lewolka (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. We shouldn't link icons as a primary usage on how to explain what they are. "black and red coral belt in jiu-jitsu" does make more sense than an icon to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be used like this at all, similar to how we try to avoid flags in the infobox. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be either or. A version that can be used is something like:
     Coral belt in BJJ
     7th deg. Black belt (Coral belt) in BJJ
Preferably, automated using a wrapper template to ensure backward compatibility. CLalgo (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I wasn't talking about linking the icons but the text, what’s "coral belt" if not jargon?. I don't think we can generalise and assume that someone unfamiliar with the subject would prefer text, I actually think that an icon is far more effective because the average person responds far better to visual information compared to plain text. I respect your opinion but disagree about the comparison with flags, we've had endless debates about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for years and the policy is clear, flags in infoboxes serve no purpose, apart from the collapsible medal templates section to show what country an athlete represented.
BJJRank icons are inserted here because they convey information in addition to the text, they serve as visual cues that help the reader's comprehension and helps present information in shorter form which is in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Lewolka (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
What is this additional info? What colours things look like? Seems like WP:DECOR to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
that additional info is the colour of the belt worn by the subject of the article to denote his/her rank in Brazilian jiu-jitsu or Judo as in the case with Kōsei Inoue. Lewolka (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per arguments above made by Cassiopeia, NEDOCHAN, and Lee Vilenski. Personally, I would like any flag icon in an IB be banned. GenQuest "scribble" 00:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm really on the fence of this one. But I will say this. The majority of people who read these articles on BJJ/MMA practitioners are casuals. They pretty much know almost nothing about the sport of BJJ. They could be even practicing the sport themselves yet ignorant of the true importance of stuff like ADCC Submission Fighting World Championship. So we need to keep in mind the average person is viewing this is a casual and cater it towards them .- Imcdc Contact 12:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Imcdc I fully agree that the most important people to consider are the casual readers; that’s why the rank icon is so convenient: they learn a key fact at a glance without having to search and read through the infobox (whose font is already smaller than the actual article and often already crammed with statistics). By adding consistency to BJJ articles it also adds a quick and easy way to compare practitioners across different pages, something you probably end up doing when you know nothing about a sport. That's probably why it has worked well for Judo over the years without any complains. Lewolka (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Without colored flag-like icons which are meaningless, even confusing, to many readers. In text form, it is salient information for the infobox. "Having the Rank icon allows notable BJJ athletes who have transitioned to be immediately identified." No, only to people in a particular wikiproject and a tiny subset of MA fans who have memorized these symbols. They don't do jack to help the average reader identify anything. PS: If judo articles are misusing icons like this, they need to stop. Cf. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "I saw a terrible idea being used in some other article, so that means I get to impose the terrible idea at this article" isn't valid reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    Rank icons provides the same salient information, without the need of cramming the infobox with long string of characters. Lewolka (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very few readers will be familiar with the ranking systems of variuous martial arts, and placing the icons in articles about practioners of MA is merely decorative, and provides no useful service to the reader. It is established that we do not use such icons in Wikipedia for decorative purposes, even if some substantial number of readers would recognize them. - Donald Albury 16:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    Show we remove them from Judo articles as well then? Tvx1 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
    It's a bit outside of this RfC, but yes, I'd say this is exactly what's needed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's more intuitive that way and helpful for those with no knowledge of the sport. - TaylorKobeRift (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"MOS:XMASTREE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MOS:XMASTREE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22 § MOS:XMASTREE until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:XMASTREE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:XMASTREE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22 § Wikipedia:XMASTREE until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Do not use too many icons" example

Currently, the section links to Special:PermanentLink/124575520 as an example of too many icons. However, this example no longer applies: most of the icons that were visible on the page are located within arguments of {{Infobox football biography}} that have since been deprecated and so they no longer show up when following the link: the only remaining icon is the Spanish flag on the "current team". The page doesn't seem to have been archived at Wayback Machine at the period that there were too many icons. Perhaps the example can be changed to a better one (though I am unfortunately unaware of any) or removed from the page completely? Randi Moth TalkContribs 17:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, American Indian Wars would be a better example. It currently has 59 flag icons in the infobox. - Donald Albury 12:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up because I saw the same thing with one flag showing. The American Indian Wars link would work but probably caution that it meets MOS:FLAGS. – The Grid (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I do question whether all of those flags are necessary. I am not sure why the same Spanish flag needs to be shown 8 times, or the same French flag 9 times. I suppose, though, that I need to raise that question on the article's talk page. Donald Albury 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
A screenshot would do even better, especially on a page where the icons are large. That would be future-proof. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Making a screenshot where the conditions of the original example have been replicated in a sandbox may work. Randi🦋TalkContribs 20:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators § Flag icons in section headings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A MOS:FLAGS discussion at the main MoS talk page

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:FLAGS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS discussion with regard to Ulster again

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Ulster Scots people#Why the flags?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Now an RfC: Talk:Ulster Scots people#RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags – about MOS:FLAGS / MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and Northern Ireland again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"MOS:fLAG" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MOS:fLAG has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS:fLAG until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_17&oldid=1221501232"