Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

WT:MOSICON

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

Archives

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

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"Mos:Flag" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:Flag has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:Flag until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in navboxes

Would anyone like to comment about the appropriateness of images in navboxes at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Images in navboxes (again)? --wooden superman 07:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG for Hong Kong

For Hong Kong, should China or Hong Kong be used? (example of context: List of tallest buildings) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The column says "Country", so people might be funny about it either way. What I would do for maximum flexibility and minimum clutter is change the column to "Polity" and use

Hong Kong. Remsense诉 11:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Macau and Taiwan @Remsense. 77.77.218.177 (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? Remsense ‥ 论 10:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they Territories of China 77.77.218.177 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is "of course" but then the follow-on question is "which China", PRC or ROK? IMO the right option is to use the PRC flag for these locales based on administrative exercise of sovereignty. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether flags should be used depends entirely on context, though there is a clear paradigm difference between HK/MO and Taiwan, which reliable sources overwhelmingly treat as its own country. Remsense ‥ 论 20:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing about MOS:SPORTFLAG?

Many articles with national flags next to the names of sports participants appear to contravene MOS:SPORTFLAG, which states that sports participants should not have national flags next to their names unless they are competing as part of their national team (... flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise.). Examples: 1983 All Japan Endurance Championship (and many other motorsport race articles), 2023 Vuelta a España (and many other cycling race articles), WTA Elite Trophy (and many other tennis articles). Maybe I misunderstand that part of MOS, but its words look pretty clear to me. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing?: That either the MOS or the articles need updating. —Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length previously - e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 11 and Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_14 - the MOS:SPORTSFLAG is not followed in a variety of sports including Formula 1, cycling, golf and others - where people compete in a non-representative way. Regarding Formula 1, it was previously determined that the racers actually do represent their country! The 2014 RfC concluded "A clear consensus that flags may be used to represent sporting nationality, though the discussion did not significantly address the circumstances of their use." Maybe the MOS needs to change to reflect the established consensus for these sports. Turini2 (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KevinMCE proposed in 2011 rephrasing the acceptable use section of MOSFLAG to Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject is widely perceived to represent that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, national sports teams or athletes in international events in which nationality is routinely reported in the results service in WP:Reliable sources. Turini2 (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I have clarified the guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we use flags for footballers (soccer players) as well in certain contexts. Giant Snowman 15:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t think that was needed. It was never limited to national teams. It said “flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality”. You clearly missed the “or representative nationality” part.T v x1 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons are good indication of quality of the article to experienced editors. Soon as you see them you assume work needs to be done to improve the article. Moxy🍁 00:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s nothing but your opinion.T v x1 05:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality ...: I actually read or here to mean a synonym i.e. "national squad/team" and "representative nationality" being one in the same, as opposed to or being an alternative. "National squad/team" and "representative nationality", already being so closely related, would be clearer with different wording than the ambiguous or, in this case, if that was the intent. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was indeed not for them to be the same. Maybe it should be tweaked then. T v x1 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Representative nationality" clearly means that the person is representing their country at the sporting event. They may not be part of a national team, but they are competing on behalf of their country rather than on behalf of a team of some kind. In the case of the cycling events like the Tour de France, the riders are not representing their countries, which is why I added the new guidance (that apparently should have been added many years ago). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples include golf and tennis, where in the Ryder Cup and Davis Cup the players represent their countries, whilst in the Masters Tournament and Wimbledon Championships they compete as individuals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they still are seen as representatives of their countries and have a representative nationality which we acknowledge in those articles.T v x1 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that support this novel interpretation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to re-prove something that already achieved consensus in the past. Just look at the metioned archived discussions. T v x1 09:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nikkimaria who reverted the change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the existing wording needs to be broadened as significantly as was proposed, though open to seeing potential clarification drafts if others feel that is necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose new language that addresses the confusion above, along with the long-standing consensus that some WikiProjects are exempt from this guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... along with the long-standing consensus that some WikiProjects are exempt from this guidance To avoid reinventing the wheel, is there a link to a past discussion on "representation" different from a formal national team? —Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty. Turini2 has provided links in the second post of this thread. T v x1 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That post said (emphasis added): A clear consensus that flags may be used to represent sporting nationality, though the discussion did not significantly address the circumstances of their use So where was the notion of "representative nationality" being separate from a national team agreed upon? —Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It‘s the sporting nationality you speak of. And please actually read those discussion instead of just the quote.T v x1 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was from the actual close of an RfC (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 14 § RfC). —Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you should really read that full discussion. The overly restrictived view of what „representing“ means was a key part of it. T v x1 17:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that you stop repeating this misleading claim that some WikiProkpjects are exempt. No WikiProject is exempt from MOS, nor do WikiProjects hold authority over certain articles. There were simply discussions in the past and consensus was achieved that national representation is not restricted to official national teams. Nothing was tied to specific WikiProjects. T v x1 09:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received a number of "Thanks" response to my addition to the page, since it is apparently an unspoken consensus. It sounds, however, like one or two of you are confused, and one or two are unclear on the what specific words mean in context on this page. For now, we are back where we started: national flags are being used in many sports articles to show legal nationality of sports participants who did not represent their countries in those competitions, contrary to the wording of this MOS page. I hope that someone can resolve this discrepancy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wrong. We only show their sporting/representative nationality. You know, the nationality they compete under. That‘s why football articles use nationalities like English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish instead of the players‘ legal nationality of British. That‘s why tennis articles uses the nationality of Chinese Taipei instead of Taiwanese and why for a while now they have not used flags for Russian and Belarusian players. We never used simple legal nationalities. T v x1 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If language is not going to be added, it would help me, and others who were clearly in the same position as me, to have a link to representative nationality explaining how it differs from legal nationality and also how it differs from being part of a national team at a competition. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this gets brought up constantly and those who like the flags will argue for their inclusion. In reality, the line where someone "represents a nationality" is quite vague. In some sports you only represent yourself, but some users are convinced that your nationality implies that you also represent your country as it is an international competition.

My thoughts? I think we should probably change it to be a bit more of how Wikipedia works in general. Does the flag get used in the context of what you are showing in the majority of reliable sources? If the flag is relevant and important, it will also be included in the sources. If it's cruft, it's unlikely it'll be in most sources.

In snooker, which I have the most experience with, things like matches and draws have flags for the television broadcast, the results and sources, but they don't do so for things like "highest break" awards. Whilst I don't personally think players actually represent their countries at (some) of these events, it's pretty clear to me that sources do think this.

Example article: 2024 World Snooker Championship. We have flags for the draw (and associated results), but not in the century breaks section. example source for draw with flags, example source for century breaks that doesn't have flags.

I can't say I'm 100% happy with how this is done, but at least it seems more consistent with how Wikipedia at large works. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the argument when sources make nationality prominent, e.g. this U.S. Open tennis bracket has flags next to players. What about team sport roster listings? How to determine when it could be relevant for a domestic league listing, e.g. Manchester United F.C. § First-team squad, and when it is not? —Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like it in a roster (or teamsheet) as those players clearly aren't representing those nations. However, there might be times when you might want to indicate something, such as when there is a domestic limit for foreign players, but even then I'd rather we identified this differently than having flags. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an asterisk or other symbol to indicate "foreign" if the specific nationality is trivial and otherwise overkill. —Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some leagues or other competitions have restrictions on the number of foreign players in a team. But for the players' own national teams to be indicated in a sub-national team list, it really only makes sense if you know what the rules are. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the cases where this is true, we should have a note or otherwise explaining it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was huge RfC when MOS:INFOBOXFLAG was written to address the use of flags in military and international sporting bodies. That is what is meant by " representative nationality" at MOS:SPORTFLAG. I see no issue in the least here. Now, do I think some articles go overboard even though they are within the letter of the law? Sure. I think when I see draws we really only need the flag at the beginning of the draw for each player. Then I'd use the flags again for the final. In-between rounds it's just overkill. But it's so ingrained in the editing system it's impossible to change, and there are so many things at wikipedia that really need our attention that this issue it microcosmically wimpy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no law here. Secondly, I’ve seen the argument that flags are only useful at the beginning of a draw pop up a couple of times and I honestly have to disagree with it. Having them there for every round allows you to scan the route a certain player took through a tournament in a matter of seconds. They are a very useful visual anchor. T v x1 19:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a matter of opinion on that. It can be minorly useful in scanning but at the cost of esthetics.... it looks lousy. And for me I scan the player name. I have no issues in college basketball playoff grids in seeing a team's path without seeing a flag icon. And charts like this are a bit of a headache to look at because it's so busy. I'll bet if you removed all those flags the chart would be easier to see and read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics should never be prioritized over functionality. Flags aren’t placed there for decoration. They are there for informative reasons and because they actually aid in parsing tables and draws. It certainly would still be possible to find and track a name without flags, but it would certainly not make easier. Flags simply make it a lot easier. And often it is not a player or team that readers are looking for, but actually a nationality. I, for one, use them often to find out how my fellow Belgians performed in sports events. I don‘t know the names of every single Belgian tennis player, for instance, from the back of my head so the presence of flags in these articles is invaluable. If it hadn‘t been for the flags in our lists of grand slam winners, I wouldn‘t have found that there was Belgian winner of a Wimbledon doubles title called Josane Sigart without having to click on every single name in those lists. Sure in your example the bare names would be easier to read without the flags, but you would also remove invaluable information. As the charts stand now, I can see in literally second how many of these tournaments were won by my felloy Belgians. Besides, we establishes in previous discussions that nationalities should be mentioned and now matter how you turn it, flags are the most simple and intuitive way to achieve that. T v x1 22:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We see it a bit differently. The flags inform upon first use in a chart, they bludgeon when used over and over again. But that's a matter for the Wikipedia Projects to decide, not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that individual projects should have control over the style of draws. It should really be centralised to an extent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that’s an opinion. I just explained how it actually is useful. T v x1 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to see at a glance how many people won something who were a specific nationality is pretty crufty. Where do you draw the line with things like that, what if I wanted to know how many people were from my birthtown? How many really enjoyed swimming?

That's why we usually only include things where they are representating a country, where the flag and associated text gives us information that is relevant. Someone being Belgian isn't all that relevant in of itself. If that person is listed in sources as representing that country, that is what makes it relevant. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, this isn’t about whether the nationalities are relevant, that already has been established in multiple previous discussion. And that’s not even for this MOS to judge. This is on how to represent them. And flags are the most straightforward way to that. Birthtowns and enjoyment are ridiculous comparisons. Those are actually cruft that noone actually cares about. T v x1 09:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is absolutely the correct location to discuss suitable wording of the MOS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wording that is within the perview of this segment of MOS. It‘s not up to MOS to judge whether nationality is relevant to a particular sport. T v x1 14:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why I said that aspect needs to be discussed within the projects, which I really had no intention of doing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing that the distinction made by Tvx1 been personal opinion and what the logical conclusion of previously established consensus seems rather arbitrary: the relevant RFC discussion doesn't ever seem to suggest that the their in question is necessary for clearly communicating the intent of the guideline it authors. Instead, this position would seem to be Tvx1's personal opinion, as I've only seen Bagumba articulate something similar. And my personal opinion differs—I don't really see how one can read or as joining two synonyms, especially when a slash is used for that instead in the previous couple of words. Remsense ‥ 论 08:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... as I've only seen Bagumba articulate something similar ...: @Remsense: Do you mean I said something similar to yourself, Tvx1, other? Regarding the use of or, a definition in my dictionary is "introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase". —Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, your post was regarding this revert and your edit summary it's also my personal opinion, just like it was only your personal opinion to add it —Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding discussion shows very clearly that there were users misunderstanding the wording. My addition was to try to make it more clear that the things before and after the or in this case are different things. Or can join synonyms but just as well present a choice. In this case it‘s the latter and apparently it wasn‘t clear. T v x1 10:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOSICON-involved TfD for Template:Redshirt

Template:Redshirt has been nominated for deletion based on this guideline. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]