Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Honorific nicknames in popular music

The use of flag icons on this page seems to me entirely out of step with the MOS rule. I'd welcome others' opinions on the topic. I'm going to start a thread on the talk page of the article and I invite both those who agree with me and those who disagree with me to opine there. David in DC (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Nice work; well done. bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Should flags be used in the way they are on this page for football matches. The flags are used to represent the county a club play in not nationality of an official or a national team. Also obviously the Scottish flag is used multiple times surely this would be excessive. I cant see how this passes mos. Im being told by the Ip who keeps reverting me that several GA articles are like this so I am wrong, whilst that is likely or may be the case i cant see how. If this is allowed what would happen say with Berwick Rangers a club who plays in the Scottish league but is based in England, to me this is open to interpretation. Blethering Scot 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

example

Celtic v FC Krasnodar

3 July 2014 Friendly	Celtic	3 – 1	FC Krasnodar	Bad Wimsbach, Austria
18:00 CEST	Stokes 2' Johansen 42' McGregor 49'	Match Report	Ahmedov 19'	Stadium: Hofmaninger Stadion

Rapid Vienna v Celtic

6 July 2014 Friendly	Rapid Vienna	1 – 1	Celtic	Vienna, Austria
18:00 CEST	van Dijk 7' (o.g.)	Match Report	Pukki 70'	Stadium: Gerhard Hanappi Stadium

There is a lot of discussion about this at the moment that hasn't resulted in a resolution. Read (at length) in the above section. SFB 18:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have and its not really the same issue, thats about players and sports people who haven't represented their nation and flag use in club rosters. Im talking about flags being used to represent the country a club play in. These clubs aren't tied to an official nation other than they play in that country. Im not proposing any change to mos just want to know if under the current mos as its worded these are allowed or not. I don't think they are, but i need more advice.Blethering Scot 20:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the general rule as it stands is that flags should not be used if the entity is not representative of the nation. My interpretation of that in this respect is (a) don't use for club friendlies, (b) do use for clubs when they are the qualified representatives of a nation in an international club competition (e.g. Champions League). You won't find anything in the MOS at the moment offering this kind of detail (hence my proposal. SFB 20:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point about the champions league, as they are the countries or league in that countries representative. At the very least they shouldn't be used for friendlies in any sport.Blethering Scot 20:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable way of showing where the opponents are from (which is noteworthy), but you could get rid of the one representing Celtic (as the article is specifically about them). Number 57 15:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

why does it matter what country they are from, also text is a reasonable replacement for flags and the article already indicates which country the match is played in. Its over use of flags no matter what way you look at it. Every team is going to have there county's flag at a minimum of twice and the Scottish flag is there in multiples. Looking through mos flag I can't see how its justified. If these were national teams them I would justify it but they have no official ties to a country. Blethering Scot 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Mine is that a club playing a club from another country is relatively unusual compared the number of games played against domestic clubs, and that this is a simple and clean way of representing that. The clubs do have official ties to countries, as they are members of their respective FAs. I also don't understand why you think it means flags being used twice. The team is only mentioned once unless it's a home-and-away match, which is usually restricted to European competition.

Yes but its a clear violation of mos flag as its worded at this moment in time, so if the widespread opinion is they should be allowed then the guideline needs to be changed. For friendlies it is totally unjustified it doesn't matter whether they are registered to a FA, they are not representing that FA in anyway. Even for European competitions its borderline but i concede they are technically representing. Currently in the article the Scottish flag is listed 11 times (and growing), the German flag twice, Austrian twice. Its excessive and can easily be done in text so the flags are unnecessary. Blethering Scot 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Which part does it violate? As I said earlier, I don't see a reason to include the Scottish one every time. And where would you put the text? Number 57 21:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's not compatible with the MOS, and the little flag pictures should be removed, because those flags aren't specific to the football teams. They are national flags and the teams are not competing on behalf of those countries. As an example of how absurd it is, not a single player on the pitch had a Scottish passport, but on wikipedia somebody has marked the team with a Scottish flag. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with Bobrayner. This is precisely the sort of misleading, pointless abuse of flag iconography that led to this guideline arising in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox anthem

The examples on Template:Infobox anthem use national flags. Is this a violation of INFOBOXFLAG? Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's always a judgment call with flag icons, Walter, but associating a national flag with a national anthem does not strike me as inappropriate. The flag is being used to represent the country of the subject national anthem. That's a pretty close representational association. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion 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.

---

This RfC template was originally placed in the "Formal Poll" section of the preceding discussion by User:Walter Görlitz. It was moved to this (separate) section by User:DH85868993 due to the question being asked having a different scope - the poll above is specifically related to "the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles", whereas this RfC appears to be scoped to discuss the use of flags, national icons or symbols to represent the nationality of sports figures in general.

{{rfc|soc|style|policy|tech|rfcid=D6D7D55}}

Should flags, national icons or symbols be used to represent the nationality of sports figures? If so, under what conditions may they be used?

Necessary clarification: RfC participants should narrowly interpret "nationality" to mean "sporting nationality" - not citizenship, not dual citizenship/nationality, not current place of residence, not place of birth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - strange, why are we discussing this again? 99% of what was being discussed above this rfc could be included in this rfc. Sports that compete internationally, yes. Olympics, F1, Tennis, etc...Especially when those sports have sources that use those very same icons. This is done already at wikipedia so no changes are really necessary except to stop those who simply don't like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really strange at all. The members of the F1 project have had their say, now let's open it up to the larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't exactly on an F1 talk page... this was at a manual of style talk page. But no matter I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support (again) as per poll above and F1 project consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support where appropriate (generally how we use them already). But I despair at this being asked yet again, in what is a very badly thought out RfC (unless the intention is to lead to a debate in which consensus on the finer details is impossible to determine?). Every sport is different, and to try and clarify how each individual one should be treated in a single RfC is ridiculous. Individual WikiProjects are best placed to identify how flags should be used on articles related to their sport, as project members will be familiar with how nationality is relevant to that sport. I disagree with the comments below about only using them for athletes who have actually represented their nation - nationality is relevant to several domestic sports, regardless of whether players are actually internationals. Number 57 08:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)edited on 20 October

  Which is why it was confined to talk about international F1 drivers (above) to narrow the scope. But someone either got angry or didn't like the results thus far. Agreed that how they are used now is generally ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the above discussion and poll. I support the reasonable use of flagicons in elite international sporting competition, regardless of whether or not any national team is participating. I hope this isn't a case of repeated RfCs and polls until the "correct" result emerges. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - again - like it or not, flags are used to show nationality in almost every sport, regardless of whether or not the athlete is representing their country, and we need to reflect that. The MOS should be changed to reflect actual usage of flags, not the other way around. GiantSnowman 09:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I support the use of flag icons to show the "sporting nationality" of athletes who are members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams (e.g., FIFA World Cup, FINA world swimming championships, IAAF world athletics championships, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan Pacific swimming events, etc.), or who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature (e.g., Formula l racing, golf, tennis, track & field, etc.). In defining/clarifying which athletes are eligible, athletes who are not members of an Olympic team or other national team, or who do not participate in sports that are international in nature (e.g., MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, WNBA), or who do not compete at the international level of their sports would not be eligible (e.g., high school athletes, college athletes, and all other athletes who do not participate at the international level of their sport) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  This sounds pretty reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, Fyunck. I am the reasonable man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  That sounds very reasonable indeed, but I would like to point out that MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, WNBA,... are not separate sports, but mere national leagues of certain sports, some of which, like basketball and ice hockey, are Olympic while others like american football and baseball have a World Cup. Tvx1 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  Tvx1, yes, of course, you are correct. That being said, for sports such as hockey, baseball and basketball, where national team members are a very small percentage of notable athletes who participate in those sports, most of the sport-specifc infoboxes, including those for baseball and basketball, have medals table options for medals won in international competition, and the infobox for hockey players has an optional field "National team" where the flag icon is used. Both of those are good solutions. As I am sure you know, the World Cup of American football, played by amateurs and semi-pro players, is barely notable itself, and precious few of the participating players are notable; the highest level of American football is the NFL, and the 32 teams are located solely in the United States. There is virtually no scenario where a notable American football player needs a flag icon -- except the rare American football player who was an Olympian in another sport. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, I agree. For instance if you have an article for Super Bowl XLVIII there's no point in putting a flag next to each player, then again for an article for a sportman like LeBron James it should be acceptable to use a flag to denote his representation of the USA in the olympics and the World Cups. Tvx1 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  And you will take note, kind sir, that Template:Infobox basketball biography, as used on the Lebron James article, already has an optional medals table built into the template. The option is there for the small percentage of basketball players who have been members of their national team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, but I was well aware of these options. What I'm concerned with are not the technical provisions in the articles and templates, but simply that the guideline should not forbid us to use a flag in a case like LeBron James'. Tvx1 (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  Tvx1, here's the problem in a nutshell: the contentious addition of "(and it is not an exception to #Avoid flag icons in infoboxes)" to MOS:SPORTFLAGS was an attempt to ban flag icons from the infoboxes of Olympians, other national team members, and other athletes who compete in fundamentally international sports -- in complete contravention to the established practice for Olympians and other national team members. There is ZERO valid reason why 7mm national flag icons, as symbols of membership of a national team or competition in international sports at their highest level, should not be used in the infoboxes of these special athletes. The UNDUE argument that is usually cited is weak; use of the flag icon is intended to call attention to the "sporting nationality" of these special athletes in international competition. SPORTSFLAGS is generally supportive of the use of flag icons for national team members and other athletes in international competition, but the parenthetical was inserted to neuter most of its original effect. Excise the parenthetical from SPORTSFLAGS, and then we can discuss the overuse vs. appropriate use of flag icons in navboxes, succession boxes, tournament brackets, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – per what I and everyone else has said above. Or in other words, keeping the usage of flags as what it currently is (with extra freedom of usage) and adjusting the MoS accordingly. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support of course, yes. For all the reasons above. Jared Preston (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is a bad way to position this RFC because it's not clear what "circumstances" that the "support" points are being made toward. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If flags or other symbols are going to be used next to sporting figures' names, the context of the use of those icons should be clear and consistent across all projects. Using the Olympics, Paralympics, and other international events such as the FIFA World Cup as examples, the use of the flag is then quite redundant as a participant must be a citizen of the nation he or she represents. However, association football clubs (and clubs of many other sports) are often made up of players from several different nations; Irishman Robbie Keane is the current captain of LA Galaxy, and Russian Alexander Ovechkin is the current captain of the Washington Capitals. As long as the context remains consistent across all projects, I can support it; if the context changes from project to project, then I will oppose it. -- Jkudlick (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jkudlick, I believe that WP:FOOTY already has its own internal rules for dealing with this, but you should put that to GiantSnowman or other editors who specialize in association football (soccer). When an association football player is a member of a national team, he would be eligible for a flag; more often than not, however, professional football players are members of professional teams that play in national leagues (e.g., the English Premiere League), not in international competition, and those teams are often composed of mixed nationals from different countries. In those circumstances, IMO, no flag should be displayed. Bottom line: the presence or absence of the flag icon for a particular athlete should be tied to the athlete's participation in international, not national sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• True, be then again those soccer teams who play in national leagues often play in international competitions as well. E.g. UEFA Champions League, CONCACAF Champions League, OFC Champions League, AFC Champions League, CAF_Champions League, Copa Libertadores,... Tvx1 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• But, if the "team" plays in international leagues, all the players on that team would have the same flag designation regardless of where they individually hail from, correct? As in tennis, you can say you are a Peruvian citizen all you want, but if internationally you are always formally recognized as a USA player, then a USA player you are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I support continuing our current style. While politically I would prefer that national affiliation were not a part of sport, the fact is . . . it is. It is contained in media references which have an amazing continuity amongst themselves, thus if we ignore that representation it would put wikipedia inconsistent with the media reporting of these sports, which is not a desirable position to be in. And even the logical conclusion of the exclusion of nationality would result in people representing commercial entities. Would it be better to use flag icons to represent Nike or Adidas, much less Exxon or some indian gaming casino (tattooed onto the back of a boxer)? Unfortunately that would be the alternative. Trackinfo (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per above arguments, especially Bretonbanquet and Dirtlawyer1. Each sport WP should define appropriate usage. Tewapack (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments in the discussion above and the one further up the page. The inclusion of nationality should be decided by consensus of the relevant wikiproject and not dictated by this one. To that end all the 'restrictions' identifying usage in sports articles should be removed. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The flags are a good thing for Wikipedia, I believe. In most places in life we see flags being used for countless numbers of situations, and I don't see why it should be any different here; I think they give a nice visual to help reinforce the content or person being mentioned in an article. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Please see my extensive comments above. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this situation, beyond the very broad principles that most people seem to agree (taken from the above discussion) that the use of the flagicon symbols should be relevant, proportional and useful. By necessity, the specific interpretation of these are factors that will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, likely at individual Wikiproject level, as the emphasis placed on a competitor's nationality, as well as the manner in which it is highlighted, will change from sport to sport. However it is done, it is very clear that MOS:FLAG as currently written is both unrepresentative and unhelpful. Pyrope 21:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - There should not be a wikipedia-wide prohibition on using flags with sportspeople. Using flags for sportspeople should be allowed as long as the emphasis placed on the competitors' nationalities within Wikipedia pages is no greater than within the sports it's writing about themselves, supported by the majority of reliable sources. Thus, as long as Wikipedia is in proportion to the normal portrayal of spots competitors in the media and other popular information sources. The decision or whether or not sporting nationality is relevant or not should be left to WikiProject dealing with the sport(s) in question. Tvx1 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Everyone agrees that flags can sometimes be used to represent nationality. The question is when. My opinion is that the current wording of the guideline makes the most sense. In other words, flag icons can be used when they are expressing a sportplayer's official representation of the country, but should not be used to represent nationality otherwise. As to whether Formula 1 drivers are officially representing their country, I have no idea. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This usage exists in the real world, and the current style is generally acceptable to me. MOS:FLAG was written without consideration for sport, and as a result, has created this unnecessary drama. Hopefully this finally puts the issue to bed. Resolute 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Please don't kill puppies. Badly written questions inevitably generate bandwagon supports and other equally irrelevant statements. My opening one for instance. Of course we should denote sporting nationality where appropriate. The question is when it is appropriate, and whether flags alone get the job done. This section contributes to that discussion in no way whatsoever. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 03:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Ok but originally this was a question only about F1 drivers and it was massively supported. yes this question was overly broad, but you answered the wrong question anyway. It was not "should we denote sporting nationality" it was should we denote sports figures nationalities with "flags, national icons or symbols." That is a resounding yes here. The author of this rfc is a big no to the question. Could we narrow down a bit when we use the icons, sure we could, and some here have done so. But I think many editors are getting tired of being told 'No they're against the rules' when certain projects have near universal acceptance. Hence they could be willing to accept all nationality icons all the time (assuming the individual projects agree) rather than have no icons allowed or to constantly have to revert MOS/icon rule ticklers day in and day out. As it's going right now it looks like the new wording from this RFC will simply be "Flags, national icons or symbols may be used to represent the nationality of sports figures." A caveat could be added to remind editors that "Individual Wikipedia Project consensus will have great bearing on these icons usage." Something as simple as those lines will stop many an edit war and lots of bickering, and seems to be consensus here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• WFC, yes, we know. Assuming good faith, and given the scope of the question asked, the only thing this RfC has accomplished, or can hope to accomplish, is a show of support for the use of flag icons in sports articles. That support has been demonstrated. The next logical step would be for the supporters (not the opponents) of such use to prepare an RfC of their own, proposing specific changes to MOS:ICON and/or specific uses of flag icons that should be permitted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I only agree with half the above. Per the lengthy f1 !votes and this RFC, it is crystal clear there is a lowest common denominator that doesn't need another RFC to change the MOS/Icons prose. We don't need to add restrictions to handle this if the addition is clear enough. Plus we need to allow for exceptions that will certainly occur. From the above RFC and common usage around wikipedia, I see no reason the following can't be added on this RFC's closing:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units or government officials or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Flag icons may be used to show the sporting nationality of athletes who are members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams, or who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature.

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.

Some have said nationality is too restrictive and about a third say that individual WikiProjects should have a large say in what's appropriate. There may be more of these but as the RFC query was exceedingly general, it's too hard to tell. If we want to give the individual projects more power or we want an even more inclusive use of icons then is when we would need another RFC with even clearer allowances. But I think this minimal addition/clarification was agreed to by all (or almost all). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it like that at all. The RfC was was too broadly phrased but the overwhelmeing support for change points to this piece of MOS needing to be significantly revised, not a minor tweak that could actually be interpreted as even more restrictive. Unless this MOS stops trying to enforce when nationality should or shouldn't be deemed relevant (which as I've said, is out of it's remit anyway) then these areguments are just going to run and run. The whole section that trys to impose a one-size-fits-all restriction on usage in sports should be removed completely:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units or government officials or national sports teams in a sporting context. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Flag icons may be used to show the sporting nationality of athletes who are members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams, or who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature. The relevance and notability of nationality to sports people or teams is derived from local consensus within the relevant wikiprojects. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a couple questions then. Why do you say my writing could be interpreted as even more restrictive than what we have now? And, there is no guarantee that local consensus at the wikiproject level will fly at a new RFC. Though I agree with you on that point, only a third or so supporters mentioned it in the current discussion. That is not consensus as it stands right now. I don't want to be like congress and get nowhere when we agree on so much. I would rather we plop in what we do agree on and then have another RFC to see if we can fine tune it even more. Who do you see getting left out of what I suggested? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason Bladeboy has concerns is that some editors will interpret your proposed amendment as a defined limit what is allowed, rather than merely clarifying what there is definite agreement upon. On a separate note, one thing I do see consensus for in the above discussions (this an the one on F1) is that usage should reflect that of the real world - i.e. media and sports website. Perhaps a wording along the lines of "The relevance and notability of nationality to sports people or teams should reflect that of reliable sources for the particular sport" could be considered. Number 57 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess I don't see it, but that wouldn't be the first or last time. Getting rid of the stuff we aren't talking about, right now MOS/Icons says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents nationality – such as national sports teams." It seems all mine did was add more "Flag icons may be used to show the sporting nationality of athletes who are members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams, or who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature. We could change what I wrote to keep it in the exact same format as before, but with even more information. "Flag icons may be relevant to show sporting nationality – such as members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams, or for those who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature." This sentence wedged between the other two (as above) should convey more info than we now have, yet not restrict it anymore than it does now. It's also what was supported "at a minimum" in the RFC and F1. Yes some supported more things like flags for the NFL maybe (which I would disagree with) or more power for WikiProjects to make a better determination on nationality importance (which I do agree with), but those additions did not carry enough weight to be added to the MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My main point is that the MOS as it currently stands and the amend you propose, leads to the arguments like the F1 one above. There is very clear consensus from the F1 project and overwhlemingly from those involved in the discussion and poll (I know polls aren't a sole inidcator but the one sidedness of it is abundently clear) that nationality (and I'm using that word specifically rather than flag or icons) is relevant, notable and useful to F1 articles but there are still editors who will say "they aren't representing that nation" and use that as a reason to unilaterally start removing nationality from hundreds of pages, often using sripts so that thousands of articles can have been edited before anyone pulls them up.

As I've also repeatedly said - this MOS is supposed to be guidance of the use of icons - visual notation to represent things. To my mind that is what it should stick to, the representation of information, not try and dictate what information is represented. And it's clear from the F1 discussion above that that is what some editors want to use this MOS for - the initial point doesn't mention icons or their use, only whether nationality is relevant to an article on F1. I ask again - what does that have to do with a project devoted to formatting and layout? The inclusion or otherwise of nation or nationality for drivers, cars, teams or anything else should be derived from consensus within WP:F1, (with input from WP:Sports etc) and nowhere else. The same for every other sport - the idea that there is a one size fits all rule that can cover everything is nonsense and unless that is addressed these arguments will roll round and round and the MOS can be used as a justification for a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing.

Regarding the RfC - I had thought it had little chance of gaining clear support but the generic support for change is overwhelming. Yes the reasons given for change are broad and there is a greater appitite for change from some than others. My difficulty with your proposal is that in view of such consensus for change, repesenting that with a minor tweak feels like using a broad support for revision to actually change nothing. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling then that this may accomplish nothing as far as changing the actual wording of MOS barring a new rfc. I feel that "those who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature" should easily cover F1 and Tennis (where I usually have to deal with icons). I don't feel it's a minor tweak, just the lowest common denominator of consensus here. If you want to start a new rfc with your own wording of what to insert please do so. If the sports are "international in nature" and individual projects get a huge say, I'm on board. What I'm going to do now is link to this rfc to show its consensus whenever some knucklehead starts messing with tennis flag icons against our Project's consensus. IMHO though we should take what is given now and work out the rough spots later. You see the consensus as overwhelming... I see it as overwhelming right now, right here. In tennis articles, too many times I've seen 90% consensus one month and then 90% consensus the other direction a month later, so I tend to take opportunity when it arrives. I'll step back and let others take the lead and hope it all works out. Give me an rfc on wording change to voice my opinion and I'll do so readily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Flags are fine for sports related articles, It's when they're getting used for schools and whatnot is what gets on my tits!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• The existing litmus for whether a flag should be used in sports articles is both quite simple, and well thought: is the team or player representing a country in some way in the competition? If yes, then a flag is appropriate. If not, the flag should be left out. The biggest grey area I've seen in how this actually gets implemented is in places like MLS team articles, where teams are limited in the number of non-native players they can have on their rosters, so a player's nationality has an effect on the team makeup. I'd like to get some feedback from others on whether that is appropriate, but my gut reaction is that nationality is both defined within MLS rules, and it is salient information for some article readers. VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

MLS may be an exception to the general rule, but that is because there is at least a quasi-legitimate reason for that exception. Unless a sports league's bylaws limit the number of "non-native" players on a club or team, there is absolutely no need for an icon designating the nationality/citizenship of a sporting figure except in reference to representing a nation in an international event. -- Jkudlick (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per above. ///EuroCarGT 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Move to Close - Goodness, I didn't realize this thing was still ongoing... it's been awhile. I guess it doesn't need or require an official closure but can we at least say by consensus this has run it's course and should unofficially close as a "support"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2014 (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.

Need a third-party opinion . . . over use of flag icons for non-national teams

I need third-party opinions at Talk:Aurea Cruz#Misuse of flag icons to designate sports clubs. Another editor is insisting on including flag icons to designate a list of professional volleyball teams in an article about a notable volleyball player. While the subject is a member of the Puerto Rican national volleyball team, the list of teams with flag icons includes her American university team and several pro teams that are not national teams, do not represent their respective countries in international competition, and compete solely only in the national sports leagues of their respective countries. To my understanding of MOS:ICON, these are inappropriate uses of flag icons; your opinion is solicited at the article talk page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Flagicon for conductors

Some {{flagicon}}s were recently added for the conductors of two symphony orchestras: diff and diff. Would someone please interpret WP:MOSFLAG for me—these flags appear undue but I'm a bit of a curmudgeon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate by any measure -- there is no element of official representation or international competition, e.g., military officers, registered ships, members of national sports teams, athletes in international competition, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my gut feeling but I wasn't sure (I see now that the key word is "represents"). I see you removed the flags. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought (Formula One)

I would like the opinions of people here with regard to a particular usage of flag icons on Formula One season articles, which I feel may be unwarranted. At 2015 Formula One season, there is a "season calendar" section where the season's list of races is displayed. At WP:F1, our policy was originally to use a flag to denote the country in the race title, which isn't always the same as the country where the race is actually held. More recently (after much debate) we decided to display a flag next to the name of the circuit to denote the host nation; we thought this might be more in line with MOSFLAG. I was in strongly favour of this at the time, but, with these flags causing us an amount of argument, I wonder if this usage is appropriate after all. There would be some opposition at WP:F1 to the flags' removal, some of it very strong, but I thought I'd sound you guys out anyway. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Breton, I don't pretend to understand the dynamics of Formula One racing teams that represent a manufacturer-design team of one nationality, but use team drivers of other sporting nationalities. I'll leave that to you F1 guys. That having been said, I think using the flag icons to designate the locations of the F1 races is a definite over-use of flags that distracts from other, proper uses. I work a lot with Olympic swimming articles, and I am in the process of removing all flag icons used to designate geographic locations of the Olympics and other swim meets while preserving and defending flag icons used to designate the sporting nationality of the competitors and their teams. Like I said, I think the location flags detract from the flags for sporting nationality of athletes in international competition -- which is the primary reason for using flags in these articles int eh first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Dirtlawyer1. I think it's an overuse of flagicons. Usually my concern is that nationality is being overemphasised at the same time as little flag pictures are being overused; but this time I think it could be reasonable to write the name of the country where the circuit is, if people are comfortable with that as a replacement for the flagicon. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, of course, I agree you should include the location of the race/circuit, including the country. Only the use of the flag icon to designate the location is in question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• That's what we would do in tennis articles... flags for nationalities, never for locations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; I'm in broad agreement with you all, and I will leave a note here if and when this is discussed at WP:F1. I'll wait for a moment when I've braced myself for a lengthy argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Formula 1

The following discussion 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.

---

I'd like to see someone present a cogent argument for how teams, drivers, and manufacturers represent their countries in any kind of way. I don't believe it for a moment. I do not accept "they put flags on TV": we're talking about representation, in a sport where there are no national teams or international competitions between country teams. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Flags are used throughout the sport to show nationality, often on the cars themselves, drivers' helmets and especially in the podium ceremony where flags are raised and national anthems are played for the winning driver and constructor. All official results are accompanied by the nationalities of the drivers. Historically, teams raced in national colours. The media frequently refer to drivers and teams representing their countries. MOS:SPORTFLAGS clearly allows their use in results tables etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See, for example, how the BBC presents standings - i.e. including nationality. Number 57 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Drivers are often referred to by their nationality, and BBC, for example, often focuses more strongly on Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button and Max Chilton. A home race always considered to be something special for the driver. Certain drivers, such as Ayrton Senna, were known for carrying flags in their cockpits that they could show off on their slowing down lap if they won. The drivers' nationality comes from their racing license (supplied by member associations) and there was an attempt to have an international competition and there sort of still is. Since it is their racing license (I will note that Romain Grosjean is Swiss, but has a French racing license, and thus is French), it serves as a representative nationality (emphasis not added from MOS:SPORTFLAGS), and thus, usage is allowed. Additionally, the FIA considers nationalities important enough to include on what is basically the entry list to the race, and the Official Race Classification. Also, if they didn't represent their countries, I don't think they would play the national anthem of the winning driver after the race (compare to NASCAR, where they play the national anthem before the race), especially while displaying the flag behind them (and once, they got Eddie Irvine's flag wrong, and there was an uproar). To further Bretonbanquet's national colours point, British teams raced in green (British Racing Green, to be precise), French teams in blue, German teams in silver or white, Italian teams in red, etc. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If nationality is irrelevant why do they raise the flags of the top three drivers and then play the national anthem of the winner before playing the national anthem of the winning constructor. The sport and it's governing body feel it's important - perhaps we should inform them that they're wrong? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I love ya, big guy, but I think that it's past time that we recognize that the current language of MOS:ICON was adopted by a "consensus" of five or six discussion participants, with ZERO notice to the sports WikiProjects, and ZERO participation from their members. (I suggest you review the discussion history when the present MOS:ICON language was adopted, and the subsequent outrage from members of WP:SHIPS and WP:MILITARYHISTORY when they were informed, and the carve-outs that were made for their uses.) The adoption of the current language was a LOCALCONSENSUS of a handful of participants purporting to create a Wikipedia-wide guideline. Based on !voting in the various attempts at modifying MOS:ICON over the last couple of years, I seriously question whether the current MOS:ICON language could attain anything resembling a consensus in its favor. It is a classic example of what happens when a small group of editors attempts to adopt a guideline of wide-ranging impact without seeking wide-ranging input from the affected parties -- with predictable results. The present guideline, as applied to sports topics, is practically unenforceable, especially since it is phrased in the normative ("should") and not the prescriptive ("must"). It's a mess, and anyone who is familiar with this history, the present language, and the widespread opposition to it, must objectively acknowledge that it is problematic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• So in the past this might have been more acceptable than it is now? Let's also focus on whether these flags are acceptable here on Wikipedia; obviously the BBC and the FIA have their own stylistic and aesthetic guidelines, but we are not obliged to follow them. I think the answer has to refer to the well-established guideline of ICONDECORATION, and not to examples on other websites. --John (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Romain Grosjean is Swiss, but has a French racing license, and thus is French" is a pretty clear example of why we shouldn't use this silly nationalist system. bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • He's actually a dual national, and dual nationals have to race as one nationality or the other, and he chose French. We call him French because that's his sporting nationality. Gyaro Maguus' point about Irvine's case is most apposite. There was hell to pay over the showing of the wrong flag at one race. It matters to people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• National flags are an intrinsic part of the sport, and are useful in drivers' Wikipedia entries. Drivers are regarded in the sport and in the media as representing their countries - Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to second-guess the real-world situation on the basis of policy wording. Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• If you wish to have a discussion about the relevance of nationality in a sport shouldn't you be posing the question in the relevant wikiproject? I don't see how this project expects to make judgements on something that is outside of it's remit?Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is appropriate to discuss here when the nationality is being incorrectly represented by a flag. If national flags are representative, when did the driver's election take place? What makes him representative of the nation? In the football articles, the flags, when used, link to the national football team, not the nation itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No - this is WP:Icons, the remit of which is to cover the use of icons used to represent information. It's remit is not to decide whether that information is relevant. The correct place to discuss the relevance of nationality within Formula One is in the F1 wikiproject. When consensus is achieved there then this project can create guidelines as to whether Flag icons should be used to identify those nationalities. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No - this is WP:Icons. So feel free to incorrectly link to nations, but don't use icons for it. They're superfluous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point - this project should not be attempting to make blanket decisions about the relevance of nationality as it is way outside it's remit, only how that nationality is identified. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's simple, really, Walter: in the case of Romain Grosjean, he was born a dual French-Swiss national, and he chose French sporting nationality and was sanctioned/licensed by the French national Formula 1 racing body. This is also typical for such other sports as golf, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and track and field for which the highest level of competition is international in nature. Just because an athlete is not a member of a national team does not mean the athlete is not representative of his nation in international sports. This is not a difficult concept to reckon, unless of course one is simply opposed to the use of flag icons, whenever and wherever one can. As long as sporting nationality is an important element in international sports, disparaging it as "silly nationalism" as someone did above, or dismissing the use of national flags in sport as "superfluous," is a simple failure to recognize the world as it is, not as some editors wish it to be. It's time for some editors to quit trying to impose their personal ideals on the world by means of Wikipedia. This is not the place to right great wrongs; it is the place to write about the reality of the world as it is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been stated, our concern here is not about nationality, so it's even simpler: don't use flags for decoration. If you intend to link to a nation, and that discussion should be kept to other locales, feel free to, but, and I cannot stress this enough, do not use flags to associated nationalities of the drivers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter: you're in denial. The amount of anger in your response tells me that you know this; anger is a natural human reaction when caught in a contradiction of our own making. Nationality and national flags are an important part of international sports, and all of your protests to the contrary fall on deaf ears. Flags are not mere "decorations"; they are symbols of nationality, and as long as they are used in international sports, they should have an appropriate place in Wikipedia's international sports articles. As I said above, I also know the tainted history of MOS:ICON, and how its present language was adopted with ZERO input from the groundlings. It is and forever will be a tainted LOCALCONSENSUS because its proponents failed to notify those editors most affected, failed to give them an opportunity to voice their opinions, and never sought their buy-in, but only demanded their compliance with the opinions of five or six editors who were all anti-flag icon in their personal opinions. That's why this provision is and will remain controversial, and why it will never be self-enforcing, as any consensus guideline should be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm angry. All I'm saying is that the flags are decorative and should not be used. If that sounds angry, I apologize for that too. However, the situation is clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Walter, the situation is not "clear"; otherwise we would not be having this argument. Every use of a trademark, copyrighted image, photograph, bar or pie graph, icon, tool line, color, or other graphic device on Wikipedia could be dismissed as "redundant," "superfluous," or "decorative." National flags are more than mere decorations -- they are powerful symbols, in sports and otherwise, and their use for athletes in international competition in golf, tennis or Formula 1 racing is no less valid than their use in the infoboxes of notable military officers or ships. And simply dismissing such widespread use with the pejorative adjective du jour doesn't cut it as a valid argument against their reasonable, appropriate and moderate use for athletes in international competition. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Dirtlawyer1 (is that somehow associated with WP:WIKILAWYERING?) it is clear. We don't use flags in infoboxes to represent nationality "where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams". It's clear that's not the case here. Linking to the nationality is not a relevant discussion for this project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, please spare us the gratuitous comments about "wikilawyering" and my username. The anti-flag campaigners continue to attempt to enforce a tainted LOCALCONSENSUS, and that is why many other editors continue to resist it. I suggest you review the history of how it was adopted. I've spoken my peace, and do not feel compelled to repeat myself further. I will remain one of the vocal opponents of such non-consensus enforcement of MOS:ICON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. sorry. It is clear to me that the flags don't belong based on the current guidelines here and its use in other projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Military leader infobox? Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein;
• Olympic athlete infobox? Michael Phelps;
• Military unit infobox? 1st Division (Australia);
• National sports team infobox? Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics; and
• Ship infobox? HMS Victory.

These examples are not odd exceptions; they're the rule. That's the real Wikipedia-wide consensus regarding flag icons, as represented by actual use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, a formula 1 driver does not have the same importance as a military leader, unit, Olympic athlete or national sports team. They represent their nations. The military leaders rose through the ranks of a national military force and many were promoted by official leaders of the nation. Olympic athletes compete against other athletes from those nations to represent them. National sports teams do so on an international platform. A formula 1 driver can drive for any nation and is not the sole representative at that level for that nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A Formula One driver certainly cannot drive for "any nation", if that is what you meant. He is strictly limited to a nation of which he is a citizen. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why is he not as important? Within their field, because that is what we really should be concentrating on here, they are as important. Yes, I understand that they don't officially represent their nation. However, ask any F1 fan whether Ferrari represents Italy in motorsports (not just F1) and they'll say yes. Ligier was considered the French national team. Hamilton is very supportive of his British fans, and is a British representative to the World Championship because F1 is a World Championship (IOC recognized, I might add). It is like an individual sport. And please explain why your last sentence actually denies right to use a flag? —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I might also add that the motorsports WikiProject does not generally advocate flags for non-Formula One racing drivers, i.e. the lower formulae, as the concept of national representation is not as strong or as steeped in tradition there as it is in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So what if (s)he is not a sole representative of their nation? No Olympic sport whatsoever has the rule that only one athlete per nation can compete. Let me remind you of the Men's 100 meters at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The final featured three Jamaicans and three Americans. The men's 200 meters even ended with a Jamaican medal sweep. Tvx1 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to stress that all Formula 1 drivers need a license issued by (one of) their national racing federation. They need to have such a license otherwise they are not allowed to compete. No driver competes without a nationality. If a driver holds multiple citizenships they choose one to represent through applying for a license with the national racing organization of the country they have chosen. They have to be a citizen of the country they represent. FIA simply doesn't allow otherwise. There are national organizations for all of them: UK->BRDC, Germany->ADAC, Switzerland->ACS, France->ACF, ... As mentioned as well, there are the national anthems and flags played and waved at the end of each race. Furthermore you cannot unilaterally enforce a guideline. It really baffles me that you run a project making guidelines, but are oblivious to what the power of a guideline is. The documentation on guidelines literally states Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. And of course there is Wikipedia:IGNORE as well. Tvx1 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Tvx1, I think you're pretty good at ignoring, seeing as how you reverted while this discussion is still ongoing. So I'm oblivious? Well, I congratulate you on having an opinion--opinions are good things to have, as is common sense of course, and I salute your 564 article edits. Dirtlawyer1, I don't know what I did to deserve your love, but I appreciate it, esse. Anyway, I suppose I should be grateful to that small group of editors who must have cared more for things other than little colorful icons. Let me point out to you all that in MMA, for instance, there is consensus over not flagging. And let me point out also that despite the blather about anthems and displayed nationalities, no one has yet been able to tell me how Jos Verstappen represented the country he was from. He represented Benneton and Tyrrell Racing, and I suppose he represented Favre Leuba and all his other sponsors--but Dutchland? how? This licensing spoken of above, that's hardly like the kind of selection that national Olympic committees do, unless you can tell me how Verstappen got his license by competing with a bunch of other Dutch prospective F1 racers and beat them out in a trial. For instance. And Dirtlawyer, you can cite a whole bunch of articles that have 'em, and I can cite a whole bunch that can't. It may be enlightening, for example, to look at Barack Obama, which also happens to be an FA. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This licensing spoken of above, that's hardly like the kind of selection that national Olympic committees do, unless you can tell me how Verstappen got his license by competing with a bunch of other Dutch prospective F1 racers and beat them out in a trial. You say F1 racers as those it is a sport all by itself. Well, no it is not. Formula One is a competition within motorsport. Verstappen won the 1992 Benelux Formula Opel Lotus series and won the corresponding 1992 Formula Opel Lotus Nations Cup in an all-Dutch team Team Netherlands. So he beat out a bunch of Dutch racing drivers to win the former, then the latter in a competition of nations. He subsequently went on to greater honors. He did not race against a bunch of Dutch drivers to get into Formula One, but how many footballers go to the world cup based only on their performance directly against other of the same nation? Most of them don't play in the same league, most of which is not in the same country, frequently not on the same continent but playing in domestic leagues, not international leagues.
  • I feel as though you are simulataneously attempt to apply criteria in team sports and individual sports when motorsport is both. The awards are largely presented to the individual, but the compete as a team. The comparison would be if the gold medal of an Olympic football tournament was awarded solely to the captain of the team and not to the rest of the team.
  • In international competitions drivers are licences by and represent their nation and are awarded as individuals even though their support system is multinational. In the era prior to corporate sponsorship, racing teams wor the colours of their nation it should be additionally noted.
  • Above it was noted that where international team competitions occur those teams can be listed as representing a nation if they are promoted as the champions of a national league - of which UEFA champions league would be an example, even though the competing teams themselves are a hodge-podge of multiple nationalities. A special exemption has been made for a competition that is of a different nature than a direct nation vs nation event.
  • Athletes competing at Olympics in individual sports - are their teams, coaches, doctors, psychologists, nutritionists member of the same nation? Do the live and train in their home nation? No on both counts not even remotely. So where an athlete competes as an individual, the contribution of their team is ignored, but not in Formula One.
  • So we have Formula One a sport where drivers compete and are awarded as individuals but nevertheless have a multinational team behind them and they compete for a world championship and are very widely recognised as being of a nation and are permitted to do so while holding a licence issued by the governing body of their home nation.
  • All kinds of sports are given all kinds of exemptions for a variety of reasons, but none of those exemptions are allowed to apply to Formula One. Why not? Who decided that? Where is it written down in policy?
  • And seperately, why do you question the sanity of those who disagree with you? Good faith much?
  • Imagine if the standard of representation had the same standard of community representation the MOS:ICON debate had. --Falcadore (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is an Australian driving one of the F1 cars this season. I don't really see that he drives for Australia, nor does he represent Australia. I suspect that when his name appeared as a new driver in F1, most Australians, even motor sports enthusiasts, said "Who?" He is really put there to attract Australian fans. That's what the flags do. Obviously many countries do not have drivers representing them. Why not? HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Formula One drivers cannot have flags, why are there flags here (where they do not represent their country and a simply board and staff members) and here (when not all of the companies are state-owned, and hence, not all not represent their country)? Do sister cities, many which most contain flags or coat of arms, really represent their countries or are they too decoration? Are we also saying that most sporting flags are used because either they do represent their country, or that they simply have the ability represent their country and that their ability to allows us to display a flag (WP:CRYSTALBALL violation)? Are we really discriminating against F1 simply because the sport is not exactly conducive to Olympic competition? The nationalities were notable enough for this set of articles to get created without anyone really minding. I would like to extend that what is trying to be enforced is a guideline and not a rule, and thus does not have to obeyed (re WP:GUIDELINE, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, WP:PRINCIPLE). —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since as you note a Formula 1 team is multinational (the specialists involved in the car and engine construction, for example, are not restricted to being from any specific country), I think solely from a standpoint of the national anthems and flags during the victory ceremony, Formula 1 ignores the rest of the team as much as the Olympics. isaacl (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Flags should not be used on these articles - the drivers are not racing as official/selected representatives of their country (as Olympians are) but simply have a nationality they race as. As per the previous discussion (current archived discuss at top of page) and established practice, flags for showing only the nationality is not an appropriate use of flag icons. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything the above closed discussion demonstrates, it's that there is no community-wide consensus supporting the current MOS:ICONS. It's crystal clear proof that the current content of MOS:ICONS is extremely controversial. It's clearly high time that you start acknowledges that there are a considerable numbers disagreeing with you and that their opinions are just as valid. Maybe we should take the closing admin's advise and initiate the RFC they mentioned. Tvx1 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As there was no consensus to change the present wording, that remains the status quo. The numbers that disagree are all in the sports area, while the rest of WP disagrees with that. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I can say the same thing about the existing language of MOS:ICON: if it were subject to a well-noticed, Wikipedia-wide RfC that required consensus to adopt/keep the present language of MOS:ICON, it would never pass. MOS:ICON was adopted by a very small group of insiders, with ZERO notice, and ZERO input from the affected parties, and it's been nothing but controversy ever since. If you want people to buy into a new guideline, you at least have to give them an opportunity to object and be heard, and not attempt to impose a six-person consensus on dozens, if not far more, objecting editors. It's a problem, and it will remain a problem until someone acknowledges that the current guideline was adopted in a less-than-forthright manner, and begins to formulate a reasonable compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I for one am an editor in sports articles and believe that they are overused in them, although I understand your point: most editors of sport articles like to have the extra colour. And to call F1 a sport is a joke. Golf is more of a sport, and it's just a walk in the park ruined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, that every other area on WP save for sports (excludin a few certain sports projects that have eliminated extraneous flag icons) has readily accepted the guideline as practice since at least about 2008, indicating that a large portion of WP editors see it as appropriate. Additionally, the RFC in 2012 was broadcasted to most of the sports projects as well, and that did not do anything to change the status quo. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they are often over-used, but anti-flag campaigners are not campaigning against their over-use, they are campaigning against any use at all, and even the tainted consensus language of MOS:ICON does not prohibit their use. Personally, I think it is ridiculous in the opposite extreme that there are people who oppose the use of a 7mm flag icon as a quick means of identifying an Olympic athlete or other sportsman in international competition. Engage most anti-flag campaigners and you will quickly discover that most of them would eliminate flags from the actual Olympics if they could; they are against what they perceive as "nationalistic" displays. Once again, Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs; it is supposed to be an encyclopedia that reflects the world as it is, not as some editors wish it to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As identified before, that graphic 7mm picture draws the eyes to the image, and implies importance when everything around it is text. As such, if the eye is going to be drawn there, it should be super important information, and in the case of sports, that should be limited to when the player is officially representing a country, as opposed to simply their nationality (or choice of that that in case of multi-citizenships). I'm aware there's some that as you'd say would eliminate them on all sports articles all together but that isn't consistent with the use in other areas like military/war and geography. But that's also balancing with how other pages about people use or don't use such icons, and we're looking for the consistency that way. The guidance that flags should be used only when the player is an official representative of that country provides sufficient consistency across all WP. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably because we don't feel the need to shoehorn a solution that works for one topic (such as politics) and apply it to others as if they are equally valid. The use of flags to denote nationality is exceedingly common within the sporting world. And as I noted the last time you guys tried to sneak a change to force your preferred version through, your limited consensus "guideline" is meaningless in this area because of the consensus that exists via the widespread use across most sporting articles and projects. Truthfully, it is really incumbent on you to convince us that deviating from what is the accepted norm, both internally and in the real world, is desirable. Resolute 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another over-generalization. I understand that they have their use, but then again, maybe I'm not an anti-flag campaigner. Maybe I'm the sane middle ground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter each reply you post regarding Formula 1 makes your opinion decrease in value dramatically. It is very obvious you hold a grudge against Formula 1, making your opinion utterly biased and not one to be regarded. You obviously don't know a smidgin' about it, or else you would have known that Formula One drivers are among the best trained and conditioned athletes in the field of sports. They are not allowed to have even a grain to much in their body masses because it would cost them speed. Additionally, there's the exhausting amount of G-forces a driver is subjected to in even one race. You should look up just how much weight a driver loses as a result of one race. Not calling F1 a sport is what's the joke here. Tvx1 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1 What I think about F1 is immaterial to the discussion. I don't think it's a sport. Big deal. I also believe that the drivers don't represent their nations. That's obvious to anyone other than a few F1 fans. None of what you say makes the use of these decorative flags any more meaningful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, you generally talk a lot of sense, but saying you don't think F1 is a sport is like saying you don't think water is wet. You may not like it, but it's incontrovertibly true. Your second point is your opinion; I'm sure you don't pretend to speak for everyone. On a more general point, the lack of knowledge of the sport from some in this discussion is a little alarming. How can someone claim an opinion on a certain aspect of the sport when they basically know nothing at all about it? I wouldn't begin to cast my opinion into a discussion involving tennis or MMA, because I am ignorant of those sports. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• None of which addresses the actual point - that this wikiproject should not attempt to dictate the relevance or otherwise of nationality across any articles - it's called WP:Icons and should concern itself with the use or otherwise of graphical representation to replace text. It should not concern itself with the actual relevance of that information that is being displayed - that is for other areas. In reality all of the nationality restrictions that have been shoe-horned into an MOS about the use of icons should be removed as being irrelevant to it's purpose. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely think you have a valid point there. Tvx1 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here is censoring the discussion of a racer's nationality - simply that using an icon to show that when the nationality is not critical to the athlete's participation that is creates visual undue weight, and misdirects the reader's eye to the least-important information. Hence why other projects have dropped it for just representing nationality. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well an editor in the pro-flag crowd initially offered a similar argument about 24 hours ago and that's correct. This project should not interfere with the discussion of nationality. What this project should be focused on is whether the nationality of a subject should use the nationality's flag in the infobox or in a table. Other than F1 fans an opponents, the consensus seems to be no: do not use the flag to decorate the driver's or team's nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But there has been little or no reference to icons in the entire discussion above - only whether nationality is relevant in Formula 1. It patently is seeking to dictate whether nationality should be noted on those articles rather than concerning itself with the representation of nationality. If the proposer feels that nationality is not relevant to Formula 1 then it should be discussed in the relevant Wikiproject not here. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the OP did not mention flag icons at all, he was just talking about nationality in F1, and many posters here appear most unknowledgeable on that subject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have to say that I agree with Bladeboy and Breton. All I can see is a group of four editors attempting to enforce their opinion that nationality is irrelevant to Formula 1 as a Wikipedia law . The behavior displayed in trying to achieve this is becoming increasingly alarming to me. What Walter wrote in their last sentence of their post is nothing more than:Ignore everybody who disagrees with us and act by the consensus that remains if you discard their input. To me such behavior is utterly unacceptable as it constitutes a complete lack of respect towards other editors and is in complete defiance of what wikipedia collaborating should be per WP:CONSENSUS. Bottom line, if you purely test it to the guidelines our use of flags is, as stated before, perfectly acceptable per MOS:SPORTFLAGS. Whether or not nationality is relevant to this individual sport is a matter we should not be discussing here, because that is not inside the scope of this Wikiproject.

Now, I, for one, would really like to know why you keep engaging WP:FormulaOne specifically time and time again. Many other sports-related WikiProjects, including some of our sister project in WP:MOTOR, use flags in a similar manner, but for some reason only we seem to be attacked over it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What I think of the sport is immaterial. What is the only incontrovertible idea with flags is that those who officially represent their nations should use flag decoration. Simply being from a nation or licensed by a nation does not merit a flag decoration. Ad hominem attacks about knowledge of the "sport" or otherwise is immaterial. F1 drivers, most footballers, ice hockey players, cricketers, darts throwers, or other athletes don't apply to the agreed-upon criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's immaterial what you think, why air your opinion of it? Your last point is also your opinion, and we shall agree to differ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's immaterial what I think about the sport. Please read the statement in full. I am airing my opinion on the use of flag decoration, and that is the discussion. And my opinion is based on the guidelines listed here, which means. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think Cricket doesn't apply to criteria. What international cricket tournaments do not compete as nations - or is it just because the British team is called "England"? --Falcadore (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume that this was addressed to me. There is difference between league play and international play. The former shouldn't have flag decorations while the latter should. In international play, the players officially represent their nation while playing. The infoboxes for individuals should list the flag next to the national team they represent, but not next to the club for which they play. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Walter, more ignorance on display in that last comment. The nationality of cricketers is certainly important in domestic play, as many leagues either have or until recently had limits on the number of foreign players allowed to be fielded. The relatively recent Kolpak ruling only limited the definition of "foreign" within the EU and those nations that have applicable mutual recognition agreements with the EU. Hence, even within domestic professional sport there is often a significant (and most certainly was a significant historic) emphasis placed on a player's nationality. Pyrope 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Do Diamond League athletes represent nations? Tour de France riders? ATP/WTA Tournament competitors? PGA/LGPA Golf tours? MotoGP? Like Formula One these are sports where athletes achievements are recognised as individuals and there are not formal national based teams, and yet are they given the same scrutiny as international motor racing? Some of those sports frequently use sub-national flags like England or Catalan. There are exemptions everywhere but none of them are allowed to be applied to Formula One? --Falcadore (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's almost amusing the way this gets trotted out by someone every now and again, without actually bothering to go to the trouble of asking questions or looking up previous (lengthy...) discussions before weighing in. On the one hand, how tedious to have to do this again. On the other, hopefully this will form a useful and easy-to-find reference to summarise the arguments when this (inevitably) gets raised again in the future. Yay! Anyway, some of the arguments for the keeping of nationality notation and flagicon reference icons in Formula 1 articles can be summarised as:

• 1. Nationalities of drivers and entrants are a significant cultural phenomenon in motorsport in general, and F1 in particular, that can be traced right back almost to the start of organised international motorsport in the Gordon Bennett Trophy races of the early years of the 20th century. In those times both driver and entrant most certainly were representing their country, and elements of this representation have persisted down the years. Many drivers are very proud of the sporting heritage of their nationality (see the fuss generated earlier this year when Lewis Hamilton suggested that the German GP wasn't Nico Rosberg's "home" event!)
• 2. The Formula 1 governing body, the FIA, formally and explicitly codify and register the nationalities of both drivers and entrants. The criteria for this are laid out in the official regulations for the competition, and the responsibility for providing both licence and registration for each entrant and driver is at the level of the national motorsport organisations; the closest entities that motorsport has to something like a Football Association or Olympic Committee.
• 3. Drivers and entrants both prominently display and use elements of their national flag for livery of both cars and teams. See Jenson Button's old (pre pink) helmet, or Michael Schumacher's, or Ayrton Senna's, or, well, you get the idea. I could name dozens. They also commonly display their national flags next to their names on both cars and driver uniforms, and the same is commonly displayed above each driver's garage at the race track.
• 4. The competition promoter, the competition regulator, the drivers, the entrants, local race promoters and pretty much every third-party media source use the driver, team and race nationalities as a simple matter of course. Almost every item of race coverage (be it official or not) makes reference to driver nationalities, and very commonly the flags of each are used as a visual shorthand in lists such as race results. Drivers particularly, but also entrants and races, very much become associated with their nationality and flag by a simple process of endless repetition in almost all media portrayals.
• 5. The purpose of a flagicon icon is iconic, not decorative. In the wonderfully banal words of Wiktionary, an icon is "A small picture which represents something". They are a visual shorthand and identity key that makes optical navigation of long lists (such as race results, season entries, etc.) much easier. They provide a quick visual reference for a newly arrived reader splashing down on a page, and they provide a visual anchor to locate particular information associated with that manner of portrayal elsewhere.

They are by no means all the arguments in favour, but frankly as there don't seem to be any arguments against the use of flagicons in the current manner that don't ultimately boil down to "but the MoS!!" or "I don't like it" I shall stop there. Simply invoking the MoS without providing cogent arguments just shows that in this matter the MoS is broken or improperly phrased and so can be usefully ignored. Pyrope 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to follow the flag-waving of FIA. It's misplaced nationalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to spell correctly either. --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I do, but if the acronym is wrong, no one is harmed, and it's below my level of caring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No you've spelt it correctly. The purpose was to point out the meaninglessness of a phrase like We don't have to... in this discussion. We don't have to jump off cliffs either. --Falcadore (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The meaningless statement was yours.

Wikipedia does not have to display flags simply because some other body feels the need to, and that's the point. We already use a form of capitalization that not all style guides follow. We do not have a uniform form of styles for punctuation (one space or two after a period), spelling (American, British, Oxford British, International, Canadian, Irish, Australian, etc. are all acceptable and the decision for their use depends on the article and consensus) or dates (similar to the rules around spelling). In short, no body can tell us what to do and so to appeal to their particular use is a waste of time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sighhh. The list of things we don't have to do is immense. And unhelpful. --Falcadore (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

But we do have the responsibility to follow rules behind our manuals of style and not to be fatalists.

In short, what this commercial body does to promote strong feelings toward individuals need not inform us on how we present them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, why do you care so much about a little 7 mm icon? Why is this so important to you to remove information? Most of your statements involve "if" and "we don't have to" and similar wording. Which implies that we can easily go against your views. Which I think is fine. You do not care about F1 (or, judging by your words here, any sport). You appear uneducated in the value of nationality to sports like this, because for whatever reason, nationalism in world sport is a thing, whether you like it or not. It is considered important, and if we are to follow sources properly, then we must represent nationality. Especially when you consider Pyrope's second point above. Overall why you care so much about something that will affect something you will not care about is beyond me. I will happily reintroduce flags under WP:IAR if they are removed. I will also happily go to the arbitration committee to get nearly all sporting flags removed if F1 flags are removed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Because we have a MoS and this clearly goes against the MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So you will happily remove (useful) information to follow a guideline, a guideline which was created without hearing from the people whom it affects? I believe normally you inform and consult with those whom are affected by decisions before making them. This was clearly not the case here. It needs to be changed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When you phrase the question in such a bias way I refuse to answer.

I will remove, with great care and concern, content that violates any policy, guideline or manual of style. They are created with a concern for Wikipedia rather than special interest groups. This includes both MOS:FLAG and WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, sorry, but you are getting into the realms of the barking mad now. You simply cannot "violate" a guideline, and your continued insistence that you can is starting to look like a serious case of WP:TENDENTIOUS. One of the fundamental principles of consensus building is that consensus can change, and the discussion on this page has amply demonstrated that, in this matter, consensus has most certainly changed (if ever the initial consensus was even representative) and you should respect that. Removal of valid material from pages, counter to prevailing consensus, isn't showing "concern for Wikipedia", it is WP:VANDALISM and will be treated as such. Pyrope 17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely ad hominem attack. Bow wow. You can violate a guideline. You can also choose to ignore it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to improve your English, Walter. Had I said that you were mad, that would have been an attack on you; what I made a remark on was your line of comment here and the dubious logic that underpins it. And no, you cannot violate a guideline. In this context, "violate" means to break some formal agreement, law or promise. A guideline is none of these. "Violate" is a very strong term that is simply inappropriate to use in the context of an informal, optional guide. You can ignore a guideline, you can fail to adhere to a guideline, you can even subvert a guideline (if the action is to deliberately highlight the illogical and inappropriate nature of such a guide), but you can't violate one. Sorry. Pyrope 20:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No it does not go against the MoS at all. It is perfectly acceptable under the terms of MOS:SPORTFLAGS. The only reason why a project like Formula 1 or Tennis is allegedly controversial is that three users are trying to dictate their restrictive and limited personal opinion of what constitutes "representing" as Wikipedia wide law that has to be abided, which is not even remotely supported by any guideline, let alone policy. The worst part is that this isn't even the duty of this WikiProject. Tvx1 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so as people seem to like enumerated bullet point lists, this time let's collate a few of the arguments from up and down this page against the use of flagicons in the current manner, and we'll see why pretty much all of them are bunk. So:

• 1. "It goes against the MoS" - So? MOS:FLAG is a guideline, not policy, and it is a guideline that is fundamentally flawed in that it was created (as pointed out by others) by a very few editors, early in Wikipedia's history, without reference or consultation as to the actual implementation of flagicon symbols within other Wikiprojects. If the only argument you have is recourse to the supposedly higher power of some unrepresentative and ill-informed cabal of editors then your argument is invalid. As for trying to imply that a guideline is a rigid rule that should be enforced in all cases, quite apart from the intellectually bankrupt premise that's just ignoring WP:IAR, a fundamental and project-wide principle.
• 2. "They place undue emphasis on a person's nationality" - According to who, you? That's your opinion, not irrefutable fact. Actually, it is very refutable. By most definitions, "undue" means something along the lines of "excessive or disproportionate" (OED). The term "excessive" is just another subjective term that depends on the eye of the beholder. Clearly, based on the participation on this page a few people think the emphasis is excessive, but many, many more do not. Do we normally kowtow to such a small minority? On the other hand, "disproportionate" is an objective term that we can test. And test it we have, by looking at the emphasis placed on nationality by the dozens (hundreds?) of available primary and secondary sources relating to Formula 1. As others have shown here, the emphasis placed on the drivers' nationalities within Wikipedia pages is no greater (and actually much less, in some instances) than the majority of secondary sources. Hence, Wikipedia is in proportion to the normal portrayal of Formula 1 drivers in the media and other popular information sources. "Undue" bites the dust.
• 3. "They should only be used when a person is an official representative of a country" - Very, very, very few countries have "official" (by which I assume you mean governmental?) bodies that sanction participation in international sport. Taking the UK as an example (because that's what I'm most familiar with) I'd like to see just one Act of Parliament that mandates The Football Association as the sole, de jure, arbiter and governing body for soccer in England. They may be the de facto body, but they are actually just a private members' club that has widespread recognition, to write them into law would be to breach a whole host of anti-monopoly international legislation. At various points in its history other competing bodies have arisen and challenged its position (e.g. the British Football Association, or the Amateur Football Association) but at no point has the government stepped in to "bless" (as one debater here amusingly put it) that particular unaccountable, unelected, private body. In the heat of 1980s hooliganism the UK government launched an investigation and released a report making many recommendations for improvement in the game and its violence issues, but the FA chose to "not accept" the vast majority of them. That's hardly the behaviour of an official arm of government, now is it? Despite this, I don't think you'll find many people arguing that the FA England team at the FIFA (another unelected private members' club) World Cup are not "representing" England. The same principles and arguments hold for, as far as I am aware, every single other sport, except in a very few countries that have legislation governing how the national flag may or may not be used. "Representation" is decided by common consent of the people who you claim to be representing. Clearly, in the case of many sporting people (including Formula 1 folk) the evidence is that society most certainly does see them as representatives of particular nations. That is verifiable by reference to most media sources.
• 4. "Formula One isn't organised like some proper international sporting competitions, such as the Olympics" - I'll use my adoptive country as the reference here... Registration of Canadian competitors for the Olympic Games is conducted at the national level by the Canadian Olympic Committee, a private, not-for-profit organisation that is independent of but affiliated to the International Olympic Committee; itself an independent, non-governmental, private, not-for-profit organisation that owns the trademarks to and acts as the governing body of the Olympic Games. Registration of Canadian competitors for the Formula One World Championship is conducted at the national level by ASN Canada, a private, not-for-profit organisation that is independent of but affiliated to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile; itself an independent, non-governmental, private, not-for-profit organisation that owns the trademarks to and acts as the governing body of the Formula One World Championship. Do you see what I did there? Perhaps I should have left in my spelling mistake typo, just to emphasise the cut-and-paste job that was performed to create those two separate but true sentences?
• 5. "[That] the WP readership, who may have zero interest in the F1 results but need to read about them, [find] a flag to indicate a nationality can be a distraction" - So someone has no interest in F1 but "needs" to read about it? Well in that case they do have an interest, clearly. They may not be a fan, but they have an interest. And it is never really explained how a strategically- and consistently-placed flagicon in tabulated data is a distraction. This argument boils down to "what I say, goes". Well, tough, thou aren't the Pope, so invoking infallibility isn't going to win you an argument. In any case, what is easier to read and navigate through: a results table that is a simple screed of text; or a table that uses, ooh, let's say some sort of small iconographic key, perhaps based on some commonly cited aspect of a competitor's public identity? Would it perhaps help if our tables are constructed using the same presentational style as a large number of available external sources? In the same manner that the governing body broadcasts the results after each race to hundreds of millions of people around the world? Basically, this is an implementation of (and sorry for getting technical here) the "visual preference heuristic". To quote a recent academic paper on the subject, tests show that "Images produce greater perceptions of variety than text, which is appealing in assortment selection, but can result in choice complexity and overload when choice sets are large" (Townsend & Kahn 2013). So, appropriately used, images make collections of information easier to consume, but too many images are perceived as clutter and are unhelpful. This is why flagicons are only strategically used, once per driver and not for any other factor, in the tabulated data of most WP:F1 articles. To continue from the same source, "results reveal that the natural gestalt processing of individual visual stimuli, as compared to the piecemeal processing of individual textual stimuli, [facilitates] a faster, though more haphazard, scanning of the assortment." The work cautions that too many images can be counter-productive, but in small data sets (say... 22 drivers?) visual perception is faster when images are used in a controlled fashion than when just text is employed. If you are wanting to find out where a particular driver finished, you will be able to do it much more rapidly if you have a visual cue, and icon, to hook into. To people that claim their only value is decorative, or are used simply because people find them attractive, I'll point out that the specialists who are paid to perform research into human visual perception disagree with you.

Right, I have to get on with real life now. Did I miss anything? Pyrope 20:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal poll

While polls are not an official way of determining consensus, it helps to see the weight of opinion. This section is not for debate or discussion, but simply stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles. Any debating may be moved to another section without fear of repercussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per real life sources like the BBC. Number 57 22:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per all outside sources and per many years of widespread use on F1 articles with no popular opposition. Also see my arguments above on the nature of national representation in F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - per sourcing and common usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per all I have written above, especially for the fact that they are representative nationalities and that the vast majority of sources available use flags and nationalities. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per many of the reasons stated above. Despite a few editors dislike for them, they are used in the sport. JohnMcButts (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - I support the use of national flag icons as a graphic symbol for athletes in international competition and to the extent national flags are commonly used in such competitions as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport (e.g., Formula 1 racing, golf, gymnastics, swimming, tennis, track & field). My support is qualified, however: flag icons should never be used for athletes in sports that are not international in character (e.g., NBA, WNBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, CFL, English Premier League, various national basketball and association football leagues in Europe), nor for athletes in professional team sports where the squad is composed of mixed nationalities (many, if not most association football/soccer situations). On the other hand, the appropriate use of flag icons for athletes who are members of their Olympic team or other national teams should be expressly permitted by a revised MOS:ICON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Per many reliable sources as well as per common practice within Formula 1 itself both teams and drivers have a representative nationality and therefore the use of flagicons within Formula 1 articles is appropriate. They have an informative value. MOS:ICON should be updated to clearly and unambiguously reflect this. --Wolbo (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Winning drivers national anthem is played and national flag are shown during the conclusion of every race, it's not too hard to relies that Formula One is a sport which represents nationality's as well as drivers and teams. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support, per my comments above, as well as the arguments of others. Resolute 23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
10. Support Flags are part of the sport - including them in the articles is genuinely useful. Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
11. Support per the many arguments presented above. DH85868993 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
12. Support It is quite clear that nationality is relevant to the sport as demonstrated by the sport's governing body. It's time this project began acting inclusively and gaining consensus rather than trying to unilaterally make judgements on areas outside of it's remit. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Per the above. --Falcadore (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
14. Support Although I still don't think that it is this Wikiproject's objective to determine the relevancy of nationality in each individual sports here, I state my opinion in support of the use of flags in Formula One articles per MOS:SPORTFLAGS. Formula One drivers cannot compete in the sport without a nationality, that's a mandatory condition set out by the governing body FIA. Furthermore that same FIA's rules stipulate that each driver has to hold a passport of the nation they represent in the sport. If a driver has citizenship of multiple nations they have to choose which one they'd like to represent most. Tvx1 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
15. Support Per sheer common sense and years of use on sports articles. QueenCake (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
16. Support In the words of my dear departed Gran, "flippin' Norah, not this again". Reasons given above. Pyrope 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
17. Support Haven't we all got better things to do than to discuss this again. I despair sometimes. There always seems to be confusion about the issue of flagicons and the issue of mentioning nationality. To discuss whether we should put a French flag or just say "French" in an infobox or whatever is quite a different issue to whether we should say French at all. Nigej (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
18. Support: as per all of the above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - The drivers do not represent the nation, they are simply from that nation and have a license from the nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Best that I can read, drivers in F1 events are not official representatives of their nation, and thus flag icons would only be used to demonstrate their nationality, which is counter to the rest of WP's MOS. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose; it's undue weight on a nationality - which is often inaccurate or misleading. It's certainly possible to cherrypick times when the nationality is emphasised and somebody waves a flag, but the reality is that they're not driving on national teams, and most of the time the media present driver as just a driver on a constructor's team. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose As now as there ever has been, there is no encyclopedic value in the icons. JOJ ^Hutton 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment

A straw poll cannot substitute for consensus. This is not how we do things. --John (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, John, it's not. But it's a clear demonstration that there are lot of editors who are unhappy with the manner in which others have attempted to use MOS:ICON. Continuing to deny the problem doesn't mean that it's going away. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And the original poster, Walter Görlitz, has never claimed it would. In fact, they have literally stated the goal is to get a better overview of the general opinion.

I will add that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a just an essay. I holds no legislative value. There is no assertion that this holds a community-wide consensus.Tvx1 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

IT does seem that if we set out, and explicitly state "Flag icons can be used to identify the nation that an athlete officially represents in an event such as for an Olympic competitor" (Which I'm not seeing any strong disagreement for) while otherwise not using them for nationality in general, then what's being said here is that Formula 1 racers do officially represent a country, and thus would fall under that. As long as that is the logic that is being used to justify the flags, and that logic doesn't "leak" to other sports areas, then this seems a reasonable conclusion. It's still keeping the use of flag icons narrow. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, like golfers, tennis players, and several classes of international athletes, it is my understanding that Formula 1 racers are sanctioned/licensed by the national governing body of their sport to participate in international competition, even if they are not part of an official national team like gymnasts, swimmers, and track & field athletes are. If we could acknowledge that, and incorporate that it into MOS:ICON, that would probably resolve virtually all of the hotly disputed use of flag icons. Then we could focus on the actual examples of grotesque over use in particular instance. That would be a very good thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to separate the two issues here. One issue is to make sure it is clear (if necessary by adding language to affirm this practice) that athletes that are officially sanctioned by a nation to perform as a representative of that nation means we can include flag icons for them. That's one point, and one I don't think there's contention about but I want to make sure. That leads to the second question that F1 is such a sport; I have my doubts on that but it's clear that others do believe this is the case. If it's consensus that F1 is a nationality-sanctioned sport, then flag icons would be okay by the first point. However, this is for F1. I disagree that all tennis players for example have this - it's a case by case situation depending on where they play, for example. As long as it's clear that the line is drawn somewhere, then we should be good. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, neither you nor I are experts in Formula 1 racing, and the licensing/sanctioning by the national Formula 1 governing bodies are, I assume, a fairly arcane topic. Put the burden on the WP:Formula 1 guys to the legwork for their sport. I think they're more than willing. As for any other professional or elite sports, those sports must be inherently international in character like golf, tennis, etc., and we include a specific exclusion for college and other non-international athletes (e.g., for the handful of college golfers and tennis players who have articles, no flag icon, unless they have also participated in international competition). Otherwise the individual athlete must be notable for having been a member of a national Olympic team or other official national team. I've been contemplating this language for two years; it would not be hard to put together a draft provision in the next couple of days. The key qualifying concepts are athletes who are (a) national team members, or (b) compete in a sport which is international in character. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that those that know F1 are speaking the truth, but there's a line that can be crossed if we're not clear why we're allowing this for F1 and other sports and not others. The line "officially sanctioned by their nation" is very clear, but the line here for F1 is very fuzzy to me because to me, there's no sanctioning here - a national license, yes, but that's very different from being a selected individual. But again, if we can make sure that line is very clear and different from just "nationality" then you have a good general criteria that can apply to others. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, by long-standing consensus, tennis players are treated the same way as formula 1 drivers... all of them. They must be sanctioned by the governing body (ITF), they must register with a single national identity. No nation, no play any ITF event. Maria Sharapova has lived in Florida for over 20 years... she represents Russia at every tournament she plays and her flag is usually listed at these events. It is an international sport just like Formula One, just like the Olympics. American baseball and American hockey work differently, so I see you point there. But tennis uses these icons day in and day out and we follow suit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sharapova doesn't represent Russia; some people just put a Russian flag next to her name. The two are very different. The last time I saw Sharapova play, she was just "Sharapova" on screen, not "Russian team: Sharapova" or "Sharapova " or any of that nonsense. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bob, try to keep up: all women tennis pros are sanctioned/licensed by WTA and their national governing body to participate in international competition. You must declare a sporting nationality to play. Them's the rules for Formula 1 racers, golfers and tennis players. Swimmers and track & field athletes are usually required to be a member of an official national team to participate. It's a given that all members of an Olympic team are also members of an official national team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner - Internationally she plays under the Russian flag whether it's the Olympics, or it's Federation Cup, or it's Wimbledon, or even plain old CBS. If Russia doesn't back her and no one else will, she can't play tennis. That flag is plastered everywhere she plays so I have no idea what you're talking about. Day in and day out, she may not represent the same way it's done at the Olympics, but it's very integral to international tennis... and we handle it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I don't doubt doubt - in amongst countless other factors in a tennis-player's career - they carry a license issued by a national organisation. I would have more sympathy for that line of argument if there were some credible connection between that fact and putting little flag pictures next to routine mentions of people who aren't even competing on a national team. Such in-universe approaches to "sporting nationality" inevitably overemphasise nationality and mislead readers. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bob, the problem here doesn't seem to be the use of flagicons (that much is shown by the almost universal use of them everywhere else...) but your rather restrictive and limited idea of what the term "represent" means. Any sports person who steps on to the international stage and declares a nationality is, in all senses that really matter, "representing" that nationality. Perception is truth, and all that. Sure, some sports may have a very heavily codified and official national body that oversees that national affiliation (actually, both tennis and motorsport do, as it happens) but it isn't a requirement. If the sports person or persons identify a national affiliation, the competition organisers are happy to accept and recognise that affiliation, and if the media report that affiliation, they are affiliated, ipso facto. This may be controversial in some cases, and downright scandalous in others, but as the rebel England tour of South Africa in 1990 shows, these players are still widely considered to be linked and identified by their stated national affiliation. I don't see how the provision of a visual key to the stated affiliation will "mislead readers". Pyrope 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• And still no one seems willing to address the fundamental issue that this project should not, and does not have jurisdiction over deciding whether nationality is relevant to a sportsperson. That should be left to consensus within relevant wiki projects. This MOS should purely be concerned with Icons and their use, not the relevance of nationality to sports people or anyone else.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Because we are talking consistency across all WP that all wikiprojects are expected to meet. There's reasonable allowances for sports for international player that represent their nation, but when we're talking outright nationality, using flags is 100% inconsistent with the rest of WP and that's not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what a Manual of Style is! --John (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • But you both fail to address my point. My point is that this whole discussion has not been about the use of flags icons but about the relevance of nationality of F1 drivers. Those are two completely separate issues. The relevance of nationality for drivers should be derived from consensus at WP:F1 not here. This project should only be concerned with addressing how nationality should be identified, not if it should be identified at all.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • But why is the use of flags to represent nationality incorrect? Like really, how else (other than "(GBR)") can you do it? I feel flags can only be used in this way in (a) infoboxes (b) tables, (c) navboxes and (d) succession boxes. The F1 articles adhere to this fully, if you hadn't realised. If you can find a flag used outside one of the four places I noted above in an article which is part of the F1 WikiProject, I'd like to see it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Flag icons are immediate eye-catching things and thus draw the eye to them and emphasize that information, which may detract from more important information. They imply a strong connection between that racer and that nation; if this was due to the nation having selected that individual to represent them, that's fine, but when it's just a person that happens to race under that nation's flag without official recogniziton, that creates an improper implicit connection. Flags are not 100% recognized by all readers, and often people forget to add the country abbreviation or the country name next to the flag to help those that don't recognize it or, for some reason, cannot see flag icons. If the readership if the F1 was near assurity people interested in F1 racing (And thus likely to be aware of the flags of key racing countries) the flags would be okay, but our readership is anyone, even those with no interest in racing, and thus we cannot assume by default they will understand what the flags mean on those pages. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @GyaroMaguus: As you can see from my comments on point, I am a strong supporter of the limited use of flag icons to identify the sporting nationality of athletes in international competition and/or members of national sports teams. That being said, I strongly believe that the inclusion of flag icons in navboxes and succession boxes are examples of unnecessary over-use, and that sometimes sports editors push the extreme limits of their use with unnecessary and repetitive flag icons in tournament brackets and the like (how many times in the same bracket does the name of a particular athlete need to be associated with a flag icon?). It's strongly analogous to over-linking per WP:OVERLINK. We do our argument for appropriate, well defined, and limited use no favors when the various sports WikiProjects tolerate and even encourage such over use. Flag icons have their greatest impact and clearest meaning when their use is properly limited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Masem: They do race with official recognition – they have to hold a racing license. If they do not hold a racing license, the FIA will not allow them to drive. The FIA does not give out the licenses, national associations, such as the Motor Sports Association, which says on its website that it "is recognised as the sole motor sport governing body for the United Kingdom by the world governing body, the Federation Internationale de L'Automobile (FIA)". If you don't have a license, you cannot compete in any events. So, if you used your license on the international stage, while you are representing yourself rather than your country, you do have official recognition, and there is a connection there. I will also say that just because someone might not recognise a flag doesn't mean we shouldn't display all flags; additionally, if you see a flag, I fail to see how that can fail to translate to "of that nation" in someone's head.

@Dirtlawyer1: I have seen flags used in navboxes and (maybe) succession boxes, usually in headers/titles, and only there should they be acceptable. Every situation is individual and for some it will make sense and for some it won't. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time working on bios for Olympic swimmers, and the succession boxes (primarily for world records) at the bottom of these articles were formerly cluttered with flag icons, which I have done my best to purge, but I still find the occasional stray. I don't believe that I have ever seen a navbox with flag icons, but I have never edited a Formula 1 article so they may exist outside my own experience. I would be very hesitant to endorse such uses, especially in a navbox with 20+ names with accompanying flag icons; in such scenarios, the icons leave a hinky visual impression -- looks like the flag storage locker at the UN. I would also suggest that when flag icons are used in a sports tournament bracket, that the icons should only be used at the first-tier entries. Doing otherwise is overkill. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Point noted and agreed with. To be honest very few F1 navboxes and succession boxes have flags. I will adjust my views on flag usage in navboxes and succession boxes. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My point on F1 racers is that while they need a license to race from their nation they opt to represent, there is no strong indication that the nation has made that person the official representative to race for that nation, unlike Olympic athletes. The same logic at the surface here would say that having to get a visa to travel to a certain country to perform in a sport there is implicitly saying the nation has chosen that athlete to represent them. I'm sure that the F1 situation is not as convoluted as that, but that's the logic I'm seeing at the surface, even with what I can read on the F1 licensing issue. It does not seem like the nation "blessing" the racer, but simply to comply with international motor vehicle laws. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that point (because it is fair one), but I pose a counter-question – why it is so imperative to not display the nationality of non-official national representatives (if you do answer, please do so without mentioning the MoS, because all decisions like this need strong reasoning behind them and just following the MoS is like following the orders of a book without questioning its contents)? The nationality is considered important by the FIA (who dictate that a nationality is declared, that nationality being the nationality on the racing license), and it is often displayed by the FIA, in places such as the entry list, the official results, the teams and drivers list and the classifications. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Because to the rest of WP readership, who may have zero interest in the F1 results but need to read about them, using a flag to indicate a nationality can be a distraction since there's no interest of the nation represented itself in the race - eg it created a false presumption that the racer is an official representative of that nation. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because you have a very limited view on what "representing" means, which is clearly not supported by a vast number of other editors. You only accept the Olympic definition, which for some weird reason does not apply to tennis, even though it's just as much an Olympic sport. Tennis players are Olympic athletes. And there are a considerable number of other tennis tournaments, like the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup and World Team Tennis were there is official national representation. But even outside them there are numerous international tournaments were nationality is very much relevant. It's interesting Maria Sharapova's name popped up, because the national anthem was played for the tearful Russian when she won the French Open earlier this year. Likewise Roger Federer was moved to tears when his national anthem was played after he completed his Career Grand Slam. And I don't think I have start explaining the effect Andy Murray winning the 2013 Wimbledon Championships had. Furthermore I don't agree with the notion that flags are distracting. I think that they make tables even more accessible. For instance when I want to find out Roger Federer's progress in the 2003 Wimbledon Championships, I instantaneously scan the draw for Swiss flags and within 10 seconds I have found out his entire route to winning the title. Likewise, if I want to find out how my fellow countrymen fared in that tournament, I scan for Belgian flags and within 30 seconds I have found out that Christophe Rochus, Dick Norman, Gilles Elseneer, Olivier Rochus and Xavier Malisse have played in the tournament and how well they performed. If those flags weren't present it would be a nightmare trying to find that information. I would like to stress that the flags arearen't useless images, but are actually templates with all sorts of embedded functions. To conclude, can you please explain to me what the fundamental difference is between an Olympic podium and a Formula 1 podium, given that the latter, contrary to their Olympic counterpart, first and foremost plays the national anthems of the winning competitors before handing out the trophies. Tvx1 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: In addition to what Tvx1 has said, your idea seems to me to be that we are not to use flags because some people may think it means international and official representation over simply nationality? To be honest, we I see flags on Olympic articles I think "that guy is British" rather than "that guy is an official representative of the Olympic team from Great Britain". I think you are trying to fix a problem that (a) doesn't really exist and (b) affects very few readers if it does exist. I would like to remind you that, when flags are involved, the team (who, with themselves, they actually fully represent) are right beside. So the reader can see "Lewis Hamilton, who is British, won the race driving for Mercedes in a time of roughly one and half hours from third on the grid, scoring 25 points in the process". Now I do understand that very few people actually know much at all about F1. You mention the Shadow Racing Team to a non-F1-expert and they will have no idea what you are talking about. But I think even the least F1-educated should be able to tell that the flag represents nationality over official national representation. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an event plays the national anthem of its winner in no way affirms official representation by the country. Everywhere on WP, all other projects have happily worked to remove using flag icons when no official national gov't connection is made (as would be the case of nationality); nationality can still be kept with the country name or code of course (so "it would be nightmare trying to find that information" is factually wrong), but to avoid using an attention grabbing icon to see that; the fact that sports wants to continue this idea it wants to be a walled garden and interpret WP policy on its own is the larger problem. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

But we are not talking about a WP Policy here by any means. We're talking about a mere guideline. MoS is not a policy. And while there might not always be a connection to a national government, there always is a direct connection to a national governing body which should be enough. You're even contradicting yourself now. You act like the big problem is representing nationality when it's allegedly irrelevant, but in the same sentence you say there is no problem to use country codes or country names even when nationality doesn't matter. That has undisputedly revealed what the real problem is: It's a personal dislike of flags, which has no place here. Furthermore, you keep pretending that every non-sports project is submissively abiding your laws, yet the above section shows clearly that no non-Mos user editor supports your position. The fact that a huge WP like WP:Sports makes their own interpretation is no problem at all, because that what's explicitly provided in WP:GUIDES when it states occasionally exceptions do apply. You simply cannot dictate a guideline that forces us to write articles in contradiction with the sources. That violates the fundamantel principle of Wikipedia of sourcing. Tvx1 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. There's a lot of froth, red herrings and misunderstanding in there, Tvx1. It is perfectly possible for the nationalities to be interesting, significant, even important, and not have to be emphasised by putting a tiny flag on articles. These are two separate issues. You need to keep them separate in your mind. This MOS talk page is for the discussion of when we should and should not use flag icons. We have a well-established principle at this project of being conservative about plastering flags onto articles. If it is really important to you that we use flags in F1 articles, are you able to describe how our readers will benefit from using them? If the answer is "They look good" or "Such-and-such a website uses them", that probably won't carry the case. But you are free to try. Finally, I am not sure what a "non-MOS user" is. I think we should assume that we all signed up to follow the MoS when we first hit "save" on an article edit. Here at the MoS talk page this seems particularly perplexing. --John (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When I refer to non-MoS editors, I mean editors who are not members of WikiProject MoS. The notion that flags put undue emphasis on nationality is just another personal opinion. I vehemently disagree with it. The emphasis we give to their sporting nationality is in exact accordance with what the subject area we write about do themselves. I think more than enough non-"it looks nice" or "such-and-such website uses them" arguments have been provided. Pyrope's are probably the most comprehensive ones, but others have provided more than enough as well. By the way, I can't see the arguments against summing to much more than "It doesn't look good" either. Tvx1 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think having flags on the basis of having sports registration with a certain country is flawed. Otherwise, why not have flags for every single other sportsperson in non-international competition? It is routine for elite sportspeople to register with a national body. My Sunday league football referee is as England-registered as Lewis Hamilton is British-registered. I think directing article flag usage on the basis of flag usage within the culture of the given sport is much more relevant in this case; it's precisely what I outlined in the MOS:SportsFlag proposal last time round. SFB 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose using flag icons to represent nationality (for any topic) in a non-sporting sense. They should only be used when a person is officially representing a country (as in the Olympics). As to whether Formula 1 drivers are officially representing their country, I have no idea as I don't know anything about the sport. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kaldari, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, as are all discussion participants. But we should also recognize that your suggestion is inconsistent with both the current language of MOS:ICON and the established use for ships and military personnel (See, e.g., Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig and SS Edmund Fitzgerald), as well as inconsistent with the established use for Olympians and other national team members (see, e.g, Shane Gould). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• In addition to Dirtlawyer's very valid comments, your suggestion is hamstrung by the conceptually nebulous and nigh-on unenforcable term "official". As I explained above, what people think they mean and what they actually mean when they refer to "official" sporting representatives are two (actually more, but let's keep it simple) different things. The only reference frames that you can use to determine national representation are specific to each sport, and are dominantly (although by no means only) influenced by media portrayal, self-identification and the recognition of a competition organiser. Pyrope 19:28, 20 October 2014 (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.

Icon-based rating systems (4 stars, etc.)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see discussion on stylized ratings systems with regard to music albums, etc. (4 stars, 5 discs, etc., etc.), at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG question

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

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text... (emphasis mine)

However, two paragraphs down, the policy states:

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

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

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

I understand it to mean that they shouldn't be used next to country names in the infobox of any article that isn't about a human settlement, and then, only for the country and top-level admin. div. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still contradictory. I really want a clarification as to whether cities are meant to be exempted from the first two paragraphs, and if so why. As it is, a number of city articles (e.g. Berlin, Paris, London) use no FLAGICONS in their Infoboxes. But this is contradicted by articles on U.S. cities, for example, which do use them (but in a totally unnecessary way, IMO). I'm really unclear as to why FLAGICONS are OK with city articles (and then used inconsistently), but almost nowhere else... --IJBall (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's been inconsistent since one part was changed to allow flagicons in infoboxes in certain conditions. If in doubt, I think we should avoid them. bobrayner (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand it to be an exception. It's contradictory insofar any exception is contradictory. Basically, it means you may use flag icons in this case here, disregarding all of the above. Notice "may". It's up to consensus, which is why you might find them in some city articles, but not others. Of course, this is only my interpretation; others might be more adept at "parsing" wiki guidelines.

If in doubt, I think we should avoid them. It doesn't make much sense to keep an exception we're just not gonna follow 'cause we're in doubt about it. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with a rule having exceptions. Any attempt to make the MOS guideline cover every possible situaton is bound to fail. In this case, the general rule is that flags should be avoided in infoboxes. The exception is that "(h)uman geographic articles ... may have flags". The only problem is how to decide when the exception goes to work, and the obvious answer is the golden rule of Wikipedia: When there is a consensus.

I can see cases where the use of flag icons in the infobox adds clarity and helps readability. During a discussion about how to present the (disputed) location of certain places in Northern Cyprus, I started to remove flags from the infobox per MOSFLAG. I found, however, that in this case it was possible to organize the info in a clearer way with the help of flags, so I reverted myself, also per MOSFLAG. The consensus that was reached, included flags. I see no problems with that.

There are probably many places where infobox flags do not serve any purpose, and should be removed (U.S. cities have been mentioned). That will in my opinion have to be discussed for that specific group of places, in order to create a consensus. If the consensus for one area is not identical to the consensus for another, so be it. There may be differences that no guideline can foresee. --T*U (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My question is really a broader one in regards to the policy in this instance – why do cities (i.e. "human geographic article(s)") get this special "carve out" from the overall MOS:FLAGICON rule?! I totally understand the exceptions covered in paragraphs #3 & #4 of the rule (I find those sensible and logical). But I don't understand this "human geographic article(s)" exception – When was it instituted? And why? Because that exception, in particular, seems to violate the spirit and intent of the first two paragraphs of the MOS:FLAGICON rule. --IJBall (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the reasoning provided for this part of the guideline to be a whole lot of incoherent nonsense. When do flags not "convey information in addition to the text"? There's no real explanation for why they're permitted in military and competition infoboxes, either. Indeed, it seems to be little more than a report on widespread usage, i.e. where using flag icons wasn't deemed to be too unprofessional or nonsensical. 31.153.43.216 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@IJBall: I do not know how the human geography exception came about, but I would guess the reason for it is just what I indicated above: There may be situations when flags are useful to present infobox data in a better way then without the flags. Also, people may have experienced that cast-iron rules never covers every possibility. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

And, again I ask: why? – why this exemption? Why, in the infobox for, say, Los Angeles, is it better to have "California" and "United States" vs. just "California" and "United States"? (Note: We're not talking about an Infobox 'image_flag' parameter here, where the use of a flag icon or image isn't just appropriate, but expected...) Again, how is the former not "unnecessarily distracting and give[ing] undue prominence to one field among many"? How does the former "add [any] informational value" over the latter? To me, this exemption for city infobox seems totally arbitrary, and basically operates against the whole purpose of the MOS:FLAGICON. Again, I get where the use of flag icons actually adds informational value and is completely appropriate (an example of this, IMO, can be found at Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) where the use of flags in the infobox actually helps readers understand the various factions involved...). But leaving the exemption for city articles to use flag icons for 'nation' and 'state', etc. Infobox parameters seems to pretty much gut MOS:FLAGICON IMO (operating against its very own purpose and spirit, as it does, and not seeming to be an example of "appropriate" use of flag icons), and if we're going to leave the city exemption in, I wonder if MOS:FLAGICON should just be done away with... --IJBall (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, IJBall, I think it is entirely appropriate to include the city flag of Los Angeles in the infobox for the Los Angeles article (again, that's a no-brainer). Whether we include the state flag of California and U.S. national flag in the same infobox for the Los Angeles article is a subject of legitimate debate. I think flag icons work best where there are relatively few of them, such as a single national flag in the infobox for an athlete who has represented his country at the Olympics as a member of his country's national team. Where there is a hodge podge of flags, the reader is overwhelmed, and the infobox or table becomes a dog's breakfast of random colors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You also have to understand that wikipedia is run by consensus, not guidelines. At any given time for any given guideline a group may vote a certain way, thereby legitimizing an icon or terminology. The next year it may change again. If 99% of editors in an RfC say the sun is blue, even though we know and sources show it's yellow-orange, then wikipedia will say it's blue. If 100% of English sources spell a guys name as "Fred" yet in a Congo newspaper he spells it "Freddd", then all it takes is votes to make sure the his spelling of "Fred" is banned from wikipedia. We are vote driven. Also guidelines can't be the end-all determination for everything wikipedia. There are simply an endless amount of topics that have different real-life parameters. That's why we have wikiprojects to help fine tune what is truly important to their subject. IMHO the Los Angeles flag should 100% be in the Los Angeles infobox... the US and California flags should not. Do they bother me there, no. They neither look ugly nor attractive... they just are there. I'm guessing that wiki project feels it's important that all that series of flags is shown at least once in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you both. I think I was confusing some people with what I said earlier, but I think we all in agreement. No one is talking about not having the flag for a city, state, province, or nation, etc. in that article's infobox (though, again, I don't consider that a "{{Flag}} icon", which is what I was talking about, but more of a "flag image" (i.e. from a image "File", rather than from the {{Flag}} icon template)). What I was taking about is having "state" or "nation" flagicons in addition at to the city's flag at the city articles. The original discussion here came about because of the use of nation flagicons in the Infobox at the Louroujina (city) article (or, as I saw later, the use of the same flagicons in many U.S. city articles). From what you both are saying, those should not be in the Infoboxes, according to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.

So, to conclude, I think the last paragraph of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG documentation should probably be made clearer – what it's meant to be talking about is that the "City of Los Angeles Flag" (i.e. it's image (file)) should be in the Infobox for Los Angeles, but that there's no reason for the flagicons of, say, California and the United States to be in there. So that needs to be clarified. --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not quite; this was debated awhile back. Los Angeles has no legal existence without California or the United States; as a creature of higher level domains, having a flag of those is proper (not mandatory - again depending on consensus at the article, especially if the territory is contested). Non-human geography such as Mt Everest has existed before nation states and well after them - hence no flag should be used in the infobox. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he understood that it was because higher level domains dictate on wikipedia, that for cities, flag icons are present for city, county, state and country. He was asking why that particular reasoning should warrant a flag and not many many other situations. It has nothing to do with being "proper." You'll find no sourcing that says that at all in the real world. It isn't a question of proper, it is simply that a group of editors decided that arrangement is what will be used and if ever challenged more agree than disagree. That's the way wikipedia works and it's what we were trying to convey to him. He did mistakenly take my own view on the situation as one of consensus... I should make clear it was my own view that those extra icons are not needed. But if the geography project has determined that it's better that County, State and Country icons are also in the infobox along with the city, well... that's what that project is there for. MOS can't cover every contingency so Projects help with conformity and specific issues of narrow scope. Anther thing to make clear is that in his original query he was talking "policy".... this is not policy, it's a "guideline." Guidelines will always have exceptions and guidelines also tells us to use common sense in applying them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The bigger problem, to my mind, is not only is this geography policy counter to the INFOBOXFLAG guideline here, but that it seems to be inconsistently enforced – in other words, either every city article should follow the geography policy, or none of them should. Because, right now, the U.S. city articles, and some others, have all of these flag icons for all of these "political divisions", but other city articles (and, in my quick perusal, I noticed London, Paris, and Berlin as examples) did not use all these flagicon for country or state or county. But I'll keep an eye out for this – should the geography Infobox flagicon policy ever come up for a vote again, I'll be a "No" vote on keeping the current policy. --IJBall (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you find any MOS policy that is consistently employed (enforced seems to imply some enforcers), please let the entire community know. My experience is that virtually every policy, guideline, MOS, etc. is inconsistently employed because (a) people don't know, (b) anyone can edit and everyone can cleanup, but cleaning up is no fun, (c) some people just disagree with rules and bend them or break them, (d) no reason whatsoever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty anarchic. The most influential factor in usage is often the whims of the original editor. I think there is a strong consensus on using flags when they directly describe the subject or the topic is a representative of the flagged body. I don't see a strong argued consensus for flag usage in merely locational matters, though there is plenty of such usage across the article base. SFB 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#flagicons in infobox which is similar to this recent discussion. Please join in. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Images in navigational box titles

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

Draft proposal to revise MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

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

• Archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Proposal regarding flag icons in infoboxes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

No we also talked other sports and specifically tennis when coming to a decision. It was absolutely to apply to both those sports and others in general. Sure I chose the closing admins words so as not to be ridiculed for using my own words... that certainly didn't work. And it's not "Every Athlete" per the closers own words. Only those who, like Olympians, play in international events and where player nationality can be sourced as being quite important. So not MLB or NFL... but Tennis, F1, or Olympics. That's what it morphed into, that's what it was closed as. Read the closers info at this link. It's pretty darned plain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The poll question was, and I quote, "This section is not for debate or discussion, but simply stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles." Nothing in the poll question that discusses any tennis or any other sport. The fact that tennis was discussed by a few editors does not mean that it was part of the poll or part of the consensus. The guideline wording MUST adhere to the perceived scope of the question and the discussion, and should not be expanded simply because a few people had mentioned tennis. And as far as wording goes, where was baseball discussed in the discussion, because your preferred wording of the guideline now includes baseball, soccer, basketball, polo, surfing, table tennis, chess, and just about any sporting event that two people or teams from different countries compete against one another. Its a very ludicrous to hypothesis that since some people discussed tennis, despite the scope of the discussion being mostly about F1, we must include every conceivable sport on earth.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reading of it is completely different then the discussion that went on, and the conclusion of the closer. If you think it could be worded slightly better I'm all for that. I never claimed to be a world-class writer. The consensus close was for athletes competing in international events and I thought it best to stick with the closer's words instead of summarizing it myself. If you could word it better yet keep the consensus close intact, give it a go. But those athletes are specifically allowed flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are reading it either. You used the phrase, Tennis was talked about extensively, on my talk page, yet by my count, tennis was only mentioned 21 times during the entire discussion by 4 times by you, in two comments, 5 times by Tvx1 in two comments, and 8 times by Dirtlawyer1 in several comments. Thats 17 mentions by three editors and that only leaves 4 mentions by other editors for and against the inclusion of tennis in the scope. Again by my count 22 people "voted" in the poll, but only 6 people mentioned tennis. That is not extensive and that is not evidence that it was to be included in the scope of the consensus.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And it was a runaway. The closer didn't just count votes (that's a wiki no-no). He looked at all the conversation, all the back and forth before coming to a conclusion. The poll was just one part of things. I think there was less participation for a discussion on the banning of sourced English spellings vs home county spellings, banning won by the way, yet that is the defacto rule of law at wikipedia without it even being in MOS. But if the village pump starts to talk of changes to MOS/ICONS it is best they realize we already have consensus on some things right here at the MOS talk page. This wasn't hidden in some darkened out of the way talk page. We reached consensus right here. Whether it's located in MOS/ICONS or linked as a consensus decision, it is what we use now at the various wikiprojects as consensus. But I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I could care less if a closer counted votes or not. Whats important is that Tennis was not part of the scope of the discussion, nor was it extensively discussed at all. In fact the closing admin said explicitly "There is consensus to use the national flag icon of an athlete in an international competition as a graphic symbol for that athlete for competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.", yet you changed that to state, "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.". I'm sorry but that is a big difference from what the closing admin said, and what you wrote. In fact the closing admin seems to simply be restating what the guideline already says in the second paragraph of MOS:FLAG, "Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games.". So basically my two new questions are, why would you reword the closing admins words to give it a new meaning, and why does the MOS need to say it twice?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

That doesn't appear to be infobox specific, as most editors would agree that the MOS clearly allows them to be used in lists and tables to represent nationality.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS doesn't make any such blanket statement about infoboxes, and many of the cases where it says to never use flag icons are specifically infobox uses, e.g. to indicate birthplace of biographical subjects, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes they were properly informed and participated in both discussions. Tennis Project by consensus and guidelines has always interpreted MOS to allow flags in infoboxes and tables, and obviously F1 felt the same. It is done for all players. I can't fathom how some could really think these lopsided discussions weren't applying to all sports, but they certainly applied to Tennis and F1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, possibly because the discussion was defined as referring specifically to Formula One right out of the box. Perhaps you could point to the point of the discussion where it said "the discussion now applies to all sports". --Falcadore (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• Although the conversation started narrowly, I think the outcome in regard to F1 has some clear parallels with tennis (omnipresence of national symbols to represent drivers, despite being a non-national competition), which was also discussed. Certainly I can't imagine a stance which allows one but not the other. SFB 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• The review has ended with no consensus to overturn the closure. Tvx1 21:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Representative nationality

Our guideline refers, repeatedly, to "Representative nationality" - and says that if sportspeople are labelled with flagicons, it should be for their representative rather than actual nationality. What is the basis for this? Is the term made up? I haven't seen it off-wiki, Representative nationality is a redlink, and a Google book search draws a blank. If it's a real thing, what's the definition - how do we decide a person's "representative nationality"? bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In general it's what nation an athlete represents in international competitions. For some sports (I'm thinking in particular about team sports - soccer, rugby etc.) it's more of a grey area. GiantSnowman 21:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Even in team sports it has a clear meaning. The national team they play for. So for instance for Wayne Rooney (soccer) and Lawrence Dallaglio (rugby) that's England. This is not necessarily limited to one. Ryan Giggs, for instance, has represented both Wales and Great Britain during his career. Tvx1 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "grey area" is that flagicons are still used (correctly IMO) to represent a nationality for players who have not represented a nation. GiantSnowman 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Flagicons are still used (correctly IMO) to represent a nationality for players who have not represented a nation": that's a problem that needs to be resolved. The articles for athletes who have never competed in international events, as a member of their national team or otherwise, should not be using flag icons. No national team, no international competition, no "representation," then there should be no national flag. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

I disagree. Even if an athlete hasn't competed on a national team or in international competition, they still have a representative nationality (and should have flagons usage) - if they have dual citizenship they generally have to declare for which country they are attempting to make national team, etc. (And this can change over time as you've noted below). Tewapack (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tewapack: In my estimation, professional golf -- like professional tennis and Formula One racing -- is an inherently international sport at its highest level of competition. The competition within the PGA, LPGA, European PGA, etc., is very much multi-national in character. I think that qualifies as "representational," even when national teams are not involved per se. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I agree with Tewapack - this is a perennial discussion and you just have to accept that flagicons will be used for athletes. GiantSnowman 08:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship can be complicated. It is possible for an athlete to be a citizen of two or more countries (e.g., Missy Franklin is a dual citizen of Canada and the United States, but competes for the U.S. national swim team). It is possible for an athlete to change citizenship during the course of the athlete's career (e.g., Martina Navratilova was a Czech but became an American during her tennis career). It is also possible that an athlete was a citizen of a different country -- either before or after their active sports career -- than the one they represented as an athlete in international competition. There are also special circumstances where an athlete may represent one national entity in some events and a larger national entity in others, such as English, Scottish and Welsh athletes representing England, Scotland and Wales in the Commonwealth Games, but representing Great Britain/United Kingdom in the Olympics, etc.). In some sports, it is even possible to be a citizen of one country, but represent another by choice. In all of these circumstances, we are not concerned with the athlete's legal citizenship, dual citizenship, legal residence, etc.; for "sporting nationality" and flag icon purposes, we only care what nation they represented while they were an athlete in active competition. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that nationality and citizenship can be complicated. That's one of the main problems with putting one - and only one - flagicon next to each person's name. So why do we have a rule which compels us to put a "representative nationality" on BLP coverage of people who haven't even "represented"? Also, why must representation take precedence over actual nationality? Most sportspeople (by our current sense of notability) haven't represented a country, and won't. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In lieu of representative nationality, actual nationality should be used. That is what we do with soccer-related articles. GiantSnowman 11:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be what we do with soccer-related articles. Alas, there are many failures. For instance: East Belfast F.C. Every single player on that team has a Northern Ireland flag next to their name. None of those people - zero - have Northern Ireland passports. Their nationality isn't Northern Irish; this is an obvious BLP failure. But, hey, somebody thought that the team plays in a league in NI so we've got to put an NI flag next to each person. The rules for "Representative nationality" seem to be made up on the spot. If we don't have a source for the actual nationality of a person, we shouldn't make up our own rules for picking flags. bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Um in soccer, there is no such thing as 'British' nationality - Northern Irish is completely correct (though, of course, the list is unreferenced so flags shouldn't be used). GiantSnowman 11:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed by the notion that "in soccer, there is no such thing as 'British' nationality". You'd better have an exceptionally strong source to support such an exceptional claim. But back to the other side of the "representative nationality" problem: We have teams like Guernsey F.C.. People living in Guernsey are generally British citizens, or failing that I might understand putting a Guernsey flag next to their name, but instead somebody put an (unsourced) English flag next to their names just because the team played in an English league. The rules for "Representative nationality" seem to be made up on the spot. If we don't have a source for the actual nationality of a person, we shouldn't make up our own rules for picking flags. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well players represent England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, not Great Britain. British citizens not from the home nations can elect to represent any of their choosing e.g. Maik Taylor or Steve Lomas. People from the Channel Islands should have the relevant Island's flag, not English. GiantSnowman 12:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tennis does it like the olympics...Great Britain nationality or Irish nationality. Citizenship is not taken into account as players can have multiple citizenships. It generally works quite well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, you are wrong there. Great Britain nationality does exist in soccer (albeit very limited). Ryan Giggs, just to name one, has represented both Wales and Great Britain during his career. Most often though, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales field separate teams for the international competitions. Although Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey have a national football team of their own, they only compete in friendly games or tournaments and none of them is affiliated with the FIFA or the UEFA. Player's stremming from there are only eligible to play for England in competitive international matches, simply because they are part of the English FA's territory. That's why they have an English flag in our articles. The flag is always the flag of the national team they currently play for, or which they are eligible for. That eligibility being determined by the FIFA. Tvx1 13:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For "British" nationality in association football, see List of fully sovereign states without FIFA membership and Great Britain Olympic football team. A similar set of rules govern other British non-football athletes when they participate in the Commonwealth Games for England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but compete for Great Britain in the Olympics and most other non-football international sports tournaments. British professional golfers, by tradition, represent the four UK constituent countries, not Great Britain. I think that covers it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: - nope, I remain correct - the GB team was a one-off at the 2012 Olympics (as it was held on home soil) - it's already been confirmed it won't re-appear in 2016. Regardless, representing GB is not the highest international level (World Cup), representing England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland is. GiantSnowman 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it was not a one-off. It has played in many olympics in the past and although there are no concrete plans to continue fielding it for the first upcoming olympics, it has not been ruled out forever and we simply can't claim it will never again appear. Who knows how the opinions will be a hundred years from know? Furthermore I'm pretty sure Great Britain will earn the right to host the olympics once again in the distant future, at which point the team will earn the automatic right to compete yet again. To sum up, a Great Britain team does exist in soccer, but it is very, very, very, very, very rarely used. Most importantly soccer players from that independent state represent England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. Tvx1 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was used in the past - but we're not talking about flagicons 40 years ago, we are talking about them now. It was discontinued in 1974 and there is no indication it will ever be reformed. You can't claim it will do so. GiantSnowman 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Never a good thing to use the word ever and the crystal ball guideline in the same sentence. It is patently wrong to claim it will not ever be reformed. We just don't know. And you know I have said right from the start that English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh nationalities are the more important ones in soccer. Tvx1 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We're moving dangerously off-topic here, but I didn't "claim it will not ever be reformed" - I said "there is no indication it will ever be reformed" - quite different. GiantSnowman 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Animated GIFs in infoboxes

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Animated GIFs in infoboxes, in which this guideline (or an edit to it) is referenced as a possible solution to the alleged issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)