Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 01 Archive 02

Contents 1 Civil Ensigns? 2 Template:Country data Dutch Guiana 3 Template:Country data Zululand's flag 4 Option: no border 5 Ignorant question 6 Problem when countries change flags 7 Changing link for {{flag|Palestine}} 8 British subnational divisions 9 Coats of Arms

[edit] Civil Ensigns?

While we already have naval ensigns, we seem to lack civil ensigns for countries other then the United Kingdom. Can the admins please help add those shown in the civil ensign article to the respective templates? And while we are at it, how about adding the few Civil air ensigns as well? Thank you!--Huaiwei (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? Looking at usage of those flag images, I see no instances where they are used in icon form. Therefore, unless you have something new in mind, there is no benefit to adding more images to these templates, especially as some of them are getting quite large already and I've seen some articles run into WP:template limits because they transclude lots of flag icons. These templates are not intended to be a gallery or directory of all possible flag variants, duplicating the work found in mainspace Wikipedia articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that many of the flags in the civil ensign article are already included as variants in the appropriate country data template, usually (if not always) with the civil selector label. I can work on adding the missing ones. My question still stands for the civil air ensigns. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See Flag of convenience for an example, an article I was working on where I encountered this problem. If civil ensigns are absolutely unneccesary, I would be questioning their existance in the United Kingdom template. Since the trouble is being made to add maritime civil ensigns, is there any major issue to add civil air ensigns at the same time, especially when it only involves a small number of entries anyway?--Huaiwei (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, that's a far more reasonable request to make — "please add these five specific images to the flag icon templates for a page I am working on" — than a broad and vague request to add images to a much larger set of templates. As for the presence of the civil variant in Template:Country data United Kingdom, that's because someone is actually using it. See List of ship commissionings in 2006 for one specific article. I think that's the key point here: we only want to expand these templates if there is an actual need for specific images to be used in icon form. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the inevitable request to add all civil ensigns will come. Please see List of merchant marine capacity by country. I hope all remaining civil ensigns will be added before I overhaul that list. Thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask that you precisely request specific images to be added to specific templates (when you need them) instead of such a general request? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a little amused. Here I am, a normal wikipedia contributor, finding my editing career being hindered by one administrator due to this lethagy in basically doing something I would have loved to do myself if not for the fact that the templates were blocked. I have made it quite clear that my request is to have all civil ensigns listed in the civil ensign article to be added to the templates. I have specified where I intend to use the templates, which is List of merchant marine capacity by country. Kindly burn the red tape or retire from this job if you are unable to expend time to do it.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am greatly offended by your statement of my "lethargy". Seriously! I have very quickly added images to all templates where I see that they are needed, but only because you provided hints through two article links that you are working on. I still had to go through the source of those two articles and extract the image names myself, because you still fail to ask what you want! I am not going to do your work for you. If you want an image added to a template, please provide the image name and the template name. If you want the attention of someone else, as I am probably the only active admin who follows this WikiProject closely, please follow the directions on the template pages themselves. That is, add {{editprotected}} on the talk pages of individual country data templates with precise instructions on what you want an admin to do. That will get the attention of admins who monitor Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. But to claim I am "lethargic" because I'm not following your broad, vague directions is an insult. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If my comment has stirred you up enough to reslise there is simply too much red tape involved here, then the purpose of my previous comment has been probably met. Admittedly, I was not aware that individual requests has to be made to each individual template just to add a series of flags, for then, I would have been even more scathing in my remarks. If I am going to actually use all civil ensigns, and I have shown you a page which already contains links to all these images, I am left wondering just what is hindering you from proceeding as requested. Is a request to add all flag images in a page to their respective templates too vague to be understood? If so, perhaps you would like me to paste the entire listing of that flags from that article here? This is not about me not wanting to do any work, for I have said quite plainly that I would certainly love to edit all those templates myself. I certainly hope that you are not hesitating to follow through with the above request for reasons such as me not following "proper procedures". While I respect you for your work and your willingness to volunteer your time in this project, I hope you are also aware that any top-down approach in handling this matter will not be appreciated. An admin serves the community. Nothing more. Thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, may I check if it is normal for the rollover to still show "Flag of the Bahamas" when it is actually the "Civil ensign of the Bahamas"?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to have variable versions of the alt attribute for country data templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Country data Dutch Guiana

Hello, I noticed a mistake originating from the template Template:Country data Dutch Guiana. Since it is a protected template I cannot correct it myself so I hope some people reading this page know how to fix it and have the necessary rights to do so. I previously put my request on the talk page of the admin who protected it, but he/she seems to be on a wikibreak and I was informed to put the request here.

As can be seen on the article Flag of Suriname the flag shown in Image:Flag of Dutch Guyana.svg became the official flag of Suriname (or 'Dutch Guiana') in 1959 (or to be more precise December 8th, 1959). Before that date the Dutch flag (Image:Flag of the Netherlands.svg) was in use in that Dutch colony. On pages like 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification the wrong flag is shown as result of this mistake in the template. On the page List of countries by population in 1907 a similar problem occurs which might be solved by fixing the same template. If not, I hope you can find out where that problem comes from. Best regards, Robotje (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the template has a mistake. There is no possible way that these templates can "know" the context in which they are used, such as using the right flag depending on whether or not the page it is transcluded onto is 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification or 1962 FIFA World Cup qualification. Editors of those articles have to take care to choose the correct historical flag variant if that is what they want. We could add a variant to Template:Country data Dutch Guiana with the Dutch flag, but unless those articles are edited to use it, nothing would change. I think the simplest solution is to edit those articles directly to use {{flagicon|Netherlands}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrwsc, I noticed you already changed the two articles in the workaround you proposed. Thanks. I'm still not sure that's the best way since templates like Template:Country data Canada and Template:Country data Egypt have a year-dependency for showing the right flag. So technically those templates can be modified to handle that kind of situations. Anyway, the two pages I mentioned having the wrong flag now show the right flag, so that problem is solved. Best Regards, Robotje (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Country data templates that include historical flag variants still require editors to actually choose the variant. There is no automatic "year-dependency". For example, editors have to put {{flag|Canada|1921}} in their articles to get that particular variant. Editors have to decide the context of the article and pick the correct variant (if any) themselves — it isn't going to happen automatically. You'll see that List of countries by population in 1907 includes wikicode such as {{flag|Canada|1868}}, {{flag|United States|1896}}, and so on. That was a conscious decision by an editor to pick the right flag for 1907. There are also dozens of instances where {{flagicon|UK}} or {{flagicon|France}} was used for their respective colonies, so putting {{flagicon|Netherlands}} in front of Dutch Guiana makes similar sense. Hope this helps, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Country data Zululand's flag

Template:Country data Zululand should not carry the flag image Image:KwaZulu flag 1985.svg. This flag was not the flag of Zululand. It was the flag of the KwaZulu Bantustan from 1985 to 1994 (as the KwaZulu article points out). And the contemporary province, KwaZulu-Natal, does not yet have an official flag. Since there is no attested flag of Zululand (that I know of) and this template is unused anyway, is there any issue with removing this flag? — AjaxSmack 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done The template was completely unused anyway, so I just deleted it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — AjaxSmack 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Option: no border

Would it be possible to add a "no-border" option? For example,  Nepal looks pretty silly with the border around the flag. While there are very few cases where a border should not be used, it would be worthwhile. - 52 Pickup (deal) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about this before. It's not a simple fix, but perhaps it's worth investing the time to find a solution. You mention "very few cases", and Nepal is certainly obvious, but what are the others? Are you thinking of just flags that are not rectangles? Or are you thinking of a more general solution for flags that do not have white areas along any of the edges and therefore might not need borders? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, just non-quadrilateral flags. Another example I can think of is  Ohio. I haven't had that much experience with these particular templates, so I don't know if you deal with naval flags too, some of which are also non-quadrilateral (some examples at Swallowtail (flag)). There's probably others, but not many. I can imagine that this is not a simple fix - these templates are so nested that it appears very complicated to make any significant changes. If someone could tell me where the border is actually created in this code, I could have a look at it and try come up with a solution. - 52 Pickup (deal) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, there is a relatively easy fix (that I've already sandbox-tested), so I can have that done shortly. Because it removes two pixels from the width of the icon, there will be some minor alignment issues in vertical lists or tables, so I would certainly limit this fix to the relatively small number of flags that are non-rectangular (quadrilaterals w/ right angles). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Working Well, I thought it was easy, and made all the changes, but found what might be a MediaWiki bug. See WP:Village pump (technical)‎#Image syntax interacts with wiki table syntax for details. I have reverted the changes to Template:Country data Nepal et. al. in the meantime until that is resolved. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Just add border = to a country data template to turn off the border for the flag (e.g. as I've done to Template:Country data Nepal and Template:Country data Ohio) or border-naval = for naval ensign variants (e.g. as I've done to Template:Country data Germany). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. Good job! 52 Pickup (deal) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a great feature. Would it be possible to implement it as an option for the flagicon image template so we could remove the borders around oddly shaped flags that don't have country data? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. For example, {{flagicon image|ICS Pennant Eight.svg|border=}} produces . — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this change might have affected all the flagicon image templates, regardless of whether or not they include border=. Example: Do you think you could fix this? Thanks again. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little sloppy there! Should work properly now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So it does. Lovely. Thanks! Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignorant question

I would like to ask has any one ever proposed a simple inline flag template for US states using their postal abbreviations? So {{MA}} or {{USA-MA}} would produce  Massachusetts. Just a thought.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been some discussion way back, but we decided not to do that. In general, we're trying to use the standard {{flag}} template and avoid the "shortcut" country code templates. Obviously, some of those country code templates (e.g. {{USA}}) are widely recognizable and provide editor convenience, but many of them are obscure (e.g {{DZA}}). Wikicode is far clearer for editors when the nation/state/province etc. is spelled out in full (e.g. {{flag|Algeria}}). We have a consensus of sorts to only maintain the "shortcut" templates for existing country codes (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, IOC, FIFA, etc.) and not to invent new codes for other entities.

With respect to US states, I think a lot of Americans would recognize the two letter codes, but I also think many non-US editors would have difficulty remembering which is which (especially MI, MN, MO, MS, etc.). I think it would also set a precedent for similar "code" templates to be created for many other nations, and to be honest, I think there is more pain than gain here. There are already about two thousand templates managed by this WikiProject, and I don't think we want to add another few hundred to a thousand more to accomodate all the subnational codes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If subnational divisions start working; something I would like; please, try to follow ISO 3166-2. For example, ISO 3166-2:US lists Massachusetts as US-MA. They always start with the nation's ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, which is usually the ccTLD, anyway. I know we have a tradition here of using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 more, for easy recognition, but we are on the web, where ccTLDs are part of everday life. I am not advocating the total abandonment of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, but it merely did not make it on to ISO 3166-2, which already has a decade of implementation. Unfortunately, if we do universally implement ISO 3166-2, we will find that some country subdivisions have no flags, but only coats of arms and that gets sticky. Is it current general consensus that coats of arms are to be deprecated, even when a corresponding flag does not exist? :)--Thecurran (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as MOS:FLAG#Inventing_new_flags_and_using_non-flag_stand-ins is concerned, it seems neither the appropriateness nor utility of workarounds like coats of arms, has been determined and community consensus-building is required. I will open a new topic at the bottom to that effect. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem when countries change flags

I have recently been editing some cricket articles on wikipedia (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Team templates), and have noticed a potential problem in various flag templates. I notice that for the "Cr" templates (Template:Cr), there is an option to specify a historical national flag rather than the current flag, such as here:

• {{cr|South Africa|1928}} →  South Africa

This is an extremely good idea, but I believe it may contain a flaw. It seems to assume that a country's current flag will remain its flag forever. However, if (for example) South Africa's flag was to change again in a few years time, then all pages which hadn't inserted the optional parameter would then start displaying the new South African flag, rather than the 2008 flag which they should display. I have no idea of the feasability of such a suggestion, but is it possible to make the variant parameter mandatory to fill in, even for pages showing current national flags, to avoid this problem occurring in the future? Juwe (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Huge issue, yes. I don't know about making the variant parameter mandatory though, as it would drop a terribly large portion of the usefulness of these templates. Most of the time, I use them for contemporary flags, and I don't want to keep in mind the correct variant parameter for every country in the world. Of course, that could probably be solved if we could pass a year instead of the actual variant and let the template itself figure out which variant to use (is that doable, template gurus?). That way, only flags used about events during the switchover year would cause problems. Another way would be to let users add flags without variant (as now) but have a bot check for all these transclusions and add the current correct variant to them, much like SmackBot and SineBot work (is that doable, bot gurus?). -- Jao (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The first of my suggestions has actually already been discussed. -- Jao (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like the first suggestion about having a "year" parameter. To avoid ambiguity as to which flag is used during changeover years, we could make it the flag that was in use at the start of 1 January on that year. Of course, this isn't a perfect solution, but it would solve the problem in the vast majority of cases. In the years where a flag is changing, I suspect that people will notice the problem of the wrong flag coming up anyway. For example, if a flag changes in mid-2010, and a flag template is used by someone in late-2010 to mark some event of the day, they (or someone else) will probably notice that the old 2010 flag has come up and seek to change it by adding the appropriate variant.

Some flags might only be used, or have been used, during the middle of one year and so not be accessible by the insertion of any year, but in these cases some additional variant would have to be added anyway in order to distinguish the flag from the other flags of that year. If there is a comprehensive list of the dates between which particular flags were in use and their variants on the pages of particular "national flag" templates, then people should be able to determine the correct variant to use when adding historical information about a country.

Finally, I'm not too sure about the "bot" suggestion. I'm not that knowledgable about the workings of bots, but I suspect that certain situations might prove too sophisticated for them. Maybe they could be used to do a "quick and crude" change to all flags being used in the relevant templates, before the errors are cleaned up, but I foresee situations where "bots" make incorrect changes. In particular, I am thinking of cases where the flag used is supposed to change, as the intention is to show the current flag of a country, whatever flag that is.

Juwe (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This also raises the point that there should be an option for the "year" to be marked something like "floating" to indicate that the flag shown should change with time.

Juwe (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What changes to the flag template system are you actually proposing (i.e. implementation details)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

None so far. I think we need input from more than two editors before we can decide which solution would be best. But if indeed we should decide on the year parameter, then we would need:

• The ability to use any year number in place of variant. If the template can unambiguously decide which flag to use for that year, it should do so. If it cannot (as will be the case if the country did not exist at the time, did not have a flag, changed flags during the year, or the year is in the future), this needs to be addressed in some way, e.g. by displaying an error message instead of the flag.
• A current variant which will apply to all countries and display the flag that is in use at the time of viewing the article.
• Not needed, but highly appreciated: the ability to specify a default flag year (or current) for an entire article (much like {{DEFAULTSORT}}).
• Some way of handling the cases where no year (or current) has been given for a flag (neither specifically or by default). This must be done keeping in mind that we can't break all the existing transclusions (which are now treated as current although very few of them probably are intended to), while still discouraging editors from adding more of these ambiguous transclusions.

I have no idea if this is actually implementable – it sounds like quite a load of work, at least. -- Jao (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the practicalities of this suggestion, but how about this:

• It would be useful to have the year (eg 2008) specified in every flag template (or current as Jao says). As such, 1st make a "2008" variant for every country (or rather make the insertion of "2008" as a variant in the code, link to the current flag of the relevant country). Then, make a Bot that automatically goes through all code that implements a flag template but doesn't already include a variant, and have the bot add a variant which says "2008". If there is no variant listed, we can assume that it is meant to be the present flag (and it will already be displaying this anyway, so we haven't altered the appearance of anything).
• Create similar year variants for 2007, 2006 etc, which link to appropriate flags. Make variants of "2005-1", "2005-2" (eg) if there are 2 flags for a particular country for the year 2005. If just "2005" is inserted as a variant for that country, display an error message which links to a page with the appropriate list of flags and corresponding code to use.
• Next, recode the templates to make the variant parameter mandatory, so that no new templates will work without the insertion of "2008" (or some other variant).
• Simultaneously, make a new parameter which is really the new variant (as the old variant is now a mandatory parameter). Get a bot to go through and change code which had already implemented an old variant, and if the old variant is something other than just the year of an old national flag (a current military flag for example), change its old variant to "2008" (or whatever year is appropriate), and move its old variant to the new variant parameter. If the old variant parameter was just an old national flag, leave its old variant as it was (if it was a year number) or change it as appropriate (eg from "1928" to "1928-2"). There is no need for it to have a new variant parameter inserted in these cases.

I know that all of this would involve a fair amount of work (assuming it is implementable), but (in my ignorance I say) it seems like a managable amount, and such changes would result in an absolute minimum of disruption to wikipedia pages using flag templates. I also think that such an improvement would have much more than just a "marginal benefit" (as suggested on Andrewsc's talk page) for reasons I have given on said talk page.

Thoughts are appreciated,

Juwe (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly more than a marginal benefit. If the United States should accept Puerto Rico as a state in, say, 2014, then suddenly the appearance of {{flag|United States}} (and related templates) will in all likelihood change, and under the current system this will mean that every flaglet in every article about sporting events (for instance) between 1959 and 2014 will suddenly incorrectly show 51 stars. Of course it would be preferrable that this situation was taken care of pre-emptively rather than after such a fact. -- Jao (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. The magnitude of future problems could be extremely great and the longer the issue is left, the worse any future situation will be in terms of wikipages showing incorrect flags. It will also be much easier to comprehensively fix all the templates now, rather than letting the number of templates grow with this issue unresolved (there is already "flag", "flagicon", "flagcountry", various sport templates like "cr" and "cr-rt" etc...)

Juwe (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if countries change flags often enough to make such a huge change to the template worthwhile. It's quite simple to change incorrect flags on historical pages, even if it's a bit tedious. I'm sure a bot could make short work of it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, since I know these are good-faith suggestions, I still assert that these proposed changes are of "marginal benefit". Let's look at the problem and solution from different angles:

• I think it is highly undesirable to force editors to use something like {{flagicon|USA|2008}} or {{flagicon|USA|current}} every time, instead of the familiar and simpler {{flagicon|USA}}. I think you would get a large amount of resistance for this, if posted to WP:Village pump (proposals), for example.
• We should be very reluctant to consider any change that would dramatically increase the size of each country data template, and I fear these suggestions would have that effect. We would have to add conditional logic to parse the year, and that isn't terse. There are already some pages that have run into WP:Template limits because they use too many flag icons, and I think the barrier would be much lower if these were all expanded in size by significant amounts.
• Is this really a "global" problem, or one that can be handled for individual flags? Within the past decade—a time period longer than the lifetime of Wikipedia itself—the only nations I can think of that have updated their national flags are Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Iraq, Lesotho, Lithuania, Rwanda, and Venezuela. In each of those cases, it was relatively easy to update Wikipedia to change all the time-specific references to use the older flag instead of the new current one. Conversely, the flag of France has been unchanged for over 218 years. Is there any reason to think that it will change? Is there any good reason to add complexity for editors who simply want to use {{flag|France}}?

I guess the question I am really asking here is: Do we really want to add significant template complexity and increased editor burden for about a thousand flag templates, transcluded on a couple of hundred thousand pages, in order to pre-emptively deal with a situation that occurs less than once a year? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc,

Thanks for your comments on this matter. I can see that this proposal is highly unlikely to be implemented, but I will respond to the points you have raised anyway. The essential motivation for the proposed changes was the desire to have flag templates which:

• were simple to use;
• were comprehensive in enabling the use of all relevant flags; and
• would not (potentially) need "fixing" once they had already been applied correctly.

The templates, as they stand, seem to satisfy the first 2 points but not the third. I will now respond specifically to the points you have made:

1) When I considered the difficulties of implementing the change, it is true that I had not really considered the political difficulties of such a change. On an issue like this, where many editors are affected in some way and where there are various legitimate arguments in both directions, I suspect that you are correct when you say "I think you would get a large amount of resistance for this, if posted to WP:Village pump (proposals)", regardless of whether the argument for a change is more meritorious than that against. On the other issue in your 1st dot point, you make the point that {{flagicon|USA}} is significantly more familiar and simpler than {{flagicon|USA|2008}} (eg). I do not believe that this is a strong argument.

To take the simplicity point first, it is obviously true that the 1st form has one fewer parameter than the second. However, both are so simple that this shouldn't be a factor in the argument at all. For the second template, all you need to remember is "flagicon", "name of country", "relevant year". In some instances the second template could even be considered simpler than the first. For example, if editing an article on the 1972 Olympics, you don't need to look up whether the flag of a country was the same then as it is now. Nor do you need find the name of the appropriate variant in that case. All you need do is insert "1972", which surely doesn't need any looking up at all!

Actually, using the "relevant year" is insufficient with your proposal. Flag changes don't always occur on 31 December/1 January; the USA changes are made on 4 July, for example. Therefore, editors need to look up the relevant year selector for the flag template in question, which is pretty much the situation we have now. When I rewrote the Olympic flag templates, which use a different system, the problem was solved because the specific dates for each Games are clearly known, so the decision of which flag variant to use can be hardcoded into the templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the familiarity issue, it is again obviously true that the version currently used is more familiar than the proposed alternative. There is therefore some small cost in switching over. However, in my experience, such familiarity issues are extremely fleeting, and when the new version is something that would remain in place for (I would think) as long as wikipedia exists in anything like its current form, I consider the familiarity argument a weak one.

2) On matters raised in your 2nd dot point, I am unfortunately largely ignorant. Regarding your point about "dramatically [increasing] the size of each country data template" and problems with WP:Template limits, I was not aware of this issue at all. As such, I may have to defer to your better judgment and concede that a change might be infeasible. This does seem to be a potentially temporary problem however, and if template limits were raised in the future due to technology improving and consequently people's quality of access to the internet throughout the world improving, this might cease to be an issue. Part of my proposal would be to have the exact dates of operation for each national flag in each "country data template" listed in the table of flags (eg here, where for example, a column would show the exact dates of the 1958-1962 flag's operation). This would help when (for this example) someone wants to use the Algerian national flag for 1962, but isn't sure which one to use. This feature can still be implemented and I believe would be useful.

This is a good idea. It would be relatively simple to add extra documentation to each flag template, and since the documentation would be inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, it would not affect template size. The only downside I see is that there is still a lot of "churn" for some flags, and there would be constant editing to keep the dates accurate, let alone the flags themselves. For example, I still think that the flags of Hungary and Iran are not yet properly described. But I like the idea. It is better than having to follow the link to the "Flag of X" article that you now see for each country data template page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

3) Regarding your 3rd dot point, I take your point that the rate of change of national flags is not particularly high. (Maybe it is a lot higher for sub-national flags though, which I notice are included in your "country data templates"?). I also acknowledge your assertion that "it was relatively easy to update Wikipedia to change all the time-specific references to use the older flag instead of the new current one." I see no reason to disagree with this. However, there are 2 points I would make about this. Are you sure you managed to change all time-specific references and that none "slipped through the net"? (BTW, this is meant as a question rather than a challenge of your integrity or competence). Secondly, as I have mentioned, the proposed change to the templates would be relevant to all flag changes of the past as well as the future. As far as I can see, there are no situations where the new template would be significantly more difficult to use than the old template, but there are some situations where it might be far easier to use (such as the 1972 Olympics example).

I agree that there are some inaccuracies still remaining; I often find the incorrect Venezuelan flag used. This problem also exists for much older historical flags too. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The final issue, which I have yet to mention in this post, is that it is, of course, less work to keep the flag templates the way they are now than to change them. This is a perfectly valid consideration, but I would hope that if feasible, and if the proposal was accepted as a good idea, then this would not prove to be a stumbling block.

Juwe (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The amount of work is clearly a major consideration here. For example, is it really worth it to update 22,613 pages that transclude Template:Country data France, just in case the French flag changes? I admit that there is a non-zero possibility that the US flag will change, but I doubt it would happen in the next decade or two. (I've lived in the US for 5 years of my life, and I can tell you that the "movement" for DC statehood, let alone Puerto Rico, is not terribly strong.) It would be trivially easy to add a 1960 variant to Template:Country data United States (since 4 July 1960 was when the 50 star flag was introduced), but to manually edit 113,519 articles to decide whether or not the flag icons were time-specific or "current", well that is a monumental task to say the least. I don't think any bot could make that decision automatically. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me put on my template thinking hat and think of a way in which this might be implemented in a non-obtrusive way. If you really want to pursue this, it is imperative that you solicit opinion at the Village Pump, I believe. Posting a message to Wikipedia talk:Manual of style (flags) might also be a good idea. But I'll tell you now that I would personally oppose any change that requires an extra parameter to the flag templates. I really think it needs to be an editor option. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrewsc,

Thanks for replying again. Although I clearly favour the modifications I have proposed (if they are feasible), I do not intend to pursue it further for a variety of reasons already mentioned. I will however clear up a couple of loose ends from this conversation.

• You said, "using the "relevant year" is insufficient with your proposal. Flag changes don't always occur on 31 December/1 January..." I did attempt to deal with this problem in my proposal when I said:

Make variants of "2005-1", "2005-2" (eg) if there are 2 flags for a particular country for the year 2005. If just "2005" is inserted as a variant for that country, display an error message which links to a page with the appropriate list of flags and corresponding code to use.

[By variant, I meant what is currently the variant parameter and what would become my mandatory year parameter. That is, the eventual code for the 2nd national flag of 2005 might look like this: {{flagicon|USA|2005|2005-2}} (assuming the US had a flag change in 2005).] The editor would initially only put in {{flagicon|USA|2005}} when editing an article about the USA in 2005, as this would not require any looking up of contry data template information. When they previewed or saved the changes however, this code would create an error message where the flag should have been, linking the editor directly to the relevant country data template.

• Regarding dates columns for the "country data templates", you said that as a downside "there would be constant editing to keep the dates accurate, let alone the flags themselves." I don't quite understand what you are saying. If you are suggesting that at the moment, the database of historical national flags is incomplete, this is a problem, but it is a problem that seems independent of the proposal for dates columns. If there 'is a complete database of such flags with the dates of their use known, then once this information is added to the relevant columns, it need never be adjusted again. You yourself said that the rate of change of national flags into the future is likely to remain low, so this shouldn't be an issue for new flags either.
• Finally, with your example about the 1960 variant for the USA, and deciding if flag-icons were meant to be time-specific or current, this goes to one of the core reasons for having a template change. If (eg) the US flag was to change, this would be one of the issues that would arise and need to be "cleaned up". In my proposal, any current USA flags would be treated as if they are time-specific to 2008 (alternatively you could choose them all to be labeled as current...that is what the flags are effectively labeled now anyway). The problems of cleaning up the code already in existance would still exist upon a switching of flags. However, any future use of the templates which put either the present year (for now 2008), some past year (eg 1950) or current as a year parameter would not need any correction. In addition, it is not only about changing templates "just in case" a flag might change, as the modifications to templates would also make life simpler for editing pages about events already in the past (eg my 1972 Olympics example).

In essence, the main question I see is this: If we could automatically switch templates from the current templates to the proposed modified templates with no costs in the process, should we do it? For me the answer is an emphatic yes, as I actually think the new template would make everyday use a lot simpler in some cases and negligibly harder in other cases. In addition, it would automatically solve the problems that arise whenever a country changes its national flag. Only then, once I have decided that making a change would indeed be beneficial, do I consider the potential problems with implementation. Problems such as:

• The time, effort, risk of failure and risk of detrimental compromises to the planned changes, required to get the idea accepted for implementation on wikipedia.
• Technical barriers, such as your "template data limits" consideration
• The short-term costs associated with the familiarity with the old system
• The time and effort to actually implement the idea once it has been accepted

Weighing all this up, although I advocate a change occurring (if indeed it is technically feasible, which you suggest it might not be), I do not think it is a worthwhile exercise for me to vigourously pursue this issue.

Juwe (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing link for {{flag|Palestine}}

There's been discussion here where they want the link produced by {{flag|Palestine}} to be changed (with a hack, if necessary) from Palestinian territories to Palestinian National Authority. I have told them that the problem, if it exists, should be fixed within the template to 'correct' it on all 700-some articles using this branch of the flag system, and asked them to propose it here. They have no apparent inclination to fix the 'problem' outside that particular article, which seems to me a rather narrow-minded perspective, but one to which they are entitled, so I have brought the issue here. Comments on the applicability of the two possible targets (Palestinian Territories vs Palestinian National Authority) would be welcome. Happy‑melon 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PNA refers to the country itself and includes the Government; Population; GDP; capita; ect. However PT refers to the geographical area. So the Flag of Palestine should link to the country not the Geographical area.

Currently the Flag directs to Palestinian territories,  Palestine.
However it should link to Palestinian National Authority.
Like so "Palestine" See how ive done it. Thats how it should be. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't support doing this because we have a better solution in the context of this particular article, see my comments here. Changing Palestinian territories => Palestinian National Authority across the board is likely to open yet another can of worms... It is sure to offend the political sensibilities of someone on one side or the other, probably both. --SJK (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that editors have long been able to use {{flag|Palestinian Authority}} for  Palestinian Authority (or {{flag|Palestinian Authority|name=Palestine}} for  Palestine if they prefer), so this option is already available for International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and other articles. I would strongly oppose changing Template:Country data Palestine, as I think there are equally valid situations where wikilinks to Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian territories are respectively applicable, depending on the context (e.g. political or geographical). Editors need to choose for themselves which template to use for each specific context; it would be inapproproiate to remove one of those choices by modifying one of these two templates. I also note that Template:Country data Palestine is also used for many sport-related articles, using templates such as {{fb|Palestine}} for  Palestine, and the links to Palestine national football team would break if this template was changed. (i.e. it's not the Palestinian National Authority national football team) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the last comment. How would changing the link {{flag|Palestine}}, which goes to Palestinian territories, break {{fb|Palestine}}, which goes to Palestine national football team? If the football link was based on the flag target and the proposed change would therefore take {{fb|Palestine}} to Palestinian National Authority national football team, would it not already be going to Palestinian territories national football team? It seems that the football target is dependent on the input text and independent of the flag target; or am I missing something? :)--Thecurran (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British subnational divisions

I do not understand why we use a haphazard admixture of national flags. I understand that sometimes the flags of unrecognized countries, UN designated non-self-governing territories, and UN permanent observers need to be used alongside those of UN members for the sake of clarity and NPOV. The constituent countries (or home nations) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, however, are none of these. In international arenas where two or more of those constituent countries compete against one another and non-British nations, like FIFA, such usage may find justification. Otherwise, it seems akin to listing an ISO 3166-2 in an otherwise ISO 3166-1 context.

If, say, we flag a 20th century composer as English rather than British like we do for Gavin Bryars, it suggests that we should list everyone by their country subdivisions or dependent areas, rather than their nation, to maintain NPOV; which would be an unclear extreme. I'm happy with saying his birthplace was Goole, East Riding of Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom, even though England is redundant as GB-ERY is more specific than GB-ENG, because some readers will find it helpful, but I do not agree with eliminating any British reference in order to have English references. If we have to flag the nationality or citizenship of non-British subjects over their country subdivisions, British subjects should be treated equally.

In order to maintain consistency, I want to limit the editor's choice to flag something or someone that is British by its constituent country as listed in MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations instead to a few specific cases, like those listed in Home Nations#Sporting_events or Template:Northern_Ireland_topics. I hope I did not offend anyone too deeply. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coats of Arms

As intimated above in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, I seek the general community opinion on the validity of using a first-order subnational administrative division's coat of arms as a workaround when its flag is unknown or non-existent. The case I am interested in is the propinsi-propinsi of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation, after PRC, India, and USA. I am trying to make icons for each of the ISO 3166-2:ID, and all I can find is coats of arms. Consider the following:

ID-AC: Aceh

ID-BA: Bali

ID-BB: Bangka-Belitung

ID-BT: Banten

ID-BE: Bengkulu

ID-GO: Gorontalo

ID-JA: Jambi

ID-JR: West Java

ID-JT: Central Java

ID-JI: East Java

ID-KB: West Kalimantan

ID-KS: South Kalimantan

ID-KT: Central Kalimantan

ID-KI: East Kalimantan

ID-KR: Riau Islands

ID-LA: Lampung

ID-MA: Maluku

ID-MU: North Maluku

ID-NB: West Nusa Tenggara

ID-NT: East Nusa Tenggara

ID-PA: Papua

ID-RI: Riau

ID-SR: West Sulawesi

ID-SN: South Sulawesi

ID-ST: Central Sulawesi

ID-SG: Southeast Sulawesi

ID-SA: North Sulawesi

ID-SB: West Sumatra

ID-SL: South Sumatra

ID-SU: North Sumatra

ID-JK: 15px|Coat of Arms of JakartaJakarta

ID-YO: Yogyakarta

or the newer

ID-PB?: West Papua

Well, does it look okay? I know I need to figure out a way to automate it. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose using coats-of-arms as icon images, mostly because it would conflict with two key points in Wikipedia:Manual of style (flags). First, flag icons should Help the reader rather than decorate. I cannot imagine how coats-of-arms are anything but decorational. They are not readily recognized, and therefore, have negligible value as a navigation aid. Second, the guideline states Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance. I'm not sure what purpose you have in mind for these, but the only two usage examples for subnational flags that I can think of that conform with the MOS are when a province/state/etc. represents a team in a sporting competition (examples: 2007 Little League World Series, 2008 Tim Hortons Brier) or in the infobox of a location within the state/etc. (e.g. West Palm Beach, Florida). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When talking about the regional extent of a culture, language, tradition, religion, species, or geographical feature, national boundaries are at once too general and representing of divisions where none exist. Take Kurdistan for example. It crosses the borders a few different nations, but at the same time is confined to only a few subdivisions within those nations. Its extent can be better defined through the use of those subdivisions. The same follows for other human groupings and the ranges of non-human species. :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what you are trying to do. Can you cite specific examples instead of writing in generalities? What infobox/list/table/etc. do you need these extra subnational icons for? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how can I make the arrangement above look better? If such coats of arms were acceptable, would the display style above be nearly acceptable? :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags) to get some more comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I raised Kurdistan before as a reason to use subnational flags. I have already mentioned that Indonesian subnational coats of arms seem to be used in place of flags. Just to be clear, I add that Indonesia has some very important dividing lines like the Northern Hemisphere / Southern Hemisphere Equator, the Placental Mammal / Marsupial Wallace line, the continental Asia / Oceania, the racial Malayo-Polynesia / Melanesia, the linguistic Malay / Papanese, the Indian Ocean / Pacific Ocean Ring of Fire, and the internationally shared islands of Borneo / Kalimantan, Timor, and New Guinea, to name a few. I tend to believe that Relativity, Meteorology, Evolution, Geography, Genetics, Culture, Language, Hydrology, Geology, History, Politics, and War when combined have as much importance as Sport, if not more.

I am a little surprised though that Kurdistan alone did not pique your interest, as it was involved in almost every war this century and last, and its oil continues to dominate Economics, which is difficult for anyone to escape. I hope we we can pass the relevance threshold together now and deal with applicability. Someone above already suggested using subnational flags, raising its pertinence in the US.

I understand that you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia and surpass my fondness for the Olympics, but please remember that we already use quite a few subnational flags:

 Alberta,  Aruba,  Anguilla,  Åland Islands,  Netherlands Antilles,  Australasia,  American Samoa,  French Southern and Antarctic Lands,  British Columbia,  Brussels-Capital Region, German-speaking Community,  Saint Barthélemy,  Bermuda,  Cocos (Keeling) Islands,  China (PRC),  China,  Congo-Brazzaville,  Congo-Kinshasa,  Cook Islands,  Curaçao,  Christmas Island,  Cayman Islands,  Democratic People's Republic of Korea,  England,  Western Sahara,  East Timor,  Falkland Islands,  Yugoslavia,  West Germany,  Faroe Islands,  Federated States of Micronesia,  Great Britain,  East Germany,  Guernsey,  Gibraltar,  Guadeloupe,  Greenland,  French Guiana,  Hong Kong,  Hong Kong, China,  Hong Kong, People's Republic of China,  Isle of Man,  British Indian Ocean Territory,  Jersey,  South Korea,  Kosovo,  Macau,  Macau, China,  Macau, People's Republic of China,  Saint Martin,  Manitoba,  FS Micronesia,  Myanmar,  Northern Mariana Islands,  Montserrat,  Martinique,  Mayotte,  New Brunswick,  New Caledonia,  Norfolk Island,  Northern Ireland,  Newfoundland and Labrador,  Nova Scotia,  Northwest Territories,  Nunavut, Template:Navy-USCG,  Ontario,  Pitcairn Islands,  Prince Edward Island,  Palestine,  People's Republic of China,  People's Republic of China (mainland only),  Puerto Rico,  Palestinian Authority,  French Polynesia,  Quebec,  Réunion,  Republic of China,  Republic of China (Taiwan),  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic,  Scotland,  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,  Saint Helena, Svalbard and Jan Mayen,  Saskatchewan,  Saint Pierre and Miquelon,  Sint Maarten,  Tahiti,  Turks and Caicos Islands,  Tokelau,  Chinese Taipei,  Northern Cyprus,  Taiwan,  United Kingdom, United States Minor Outlying Islands,  Holy See,  Vatican City,  British Virgin Islands,  United States Virgin Islands,  Wales,  Yukon,  Yugoslavia,  Zaire.

as well as supernational flags:

 Arab League,  Antarctica,  Czechoslovakia,  European Union,  European Union,  United Nations,  Soviet Union,  Soviet Union.

Some of these are merely old; some are for non-self-governing territories; and some are just replicates but many are included as subnational divisions of wealthy countries, excluding those of less developed countries. Why do we not just change those to where they belong in ISO 3166-2, exclude anything outside of ISO 3166, demote replicates by making them redirects or time-based subsections of their appropriate sovereign UN member states. BTW, if we include EU and AL, we have to make room for CIS and every other IGO that has a mission in the UN?

I also like the idea of starting to make ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 more prominent, because of how the ISO labels languages and ccTLD's. For example a Québécois wikipedia could be listed clearly as http://fr-CN-QC.wikipedia.org/ , a Scottish one (that is one in Scottish English) could be http://en-GB-SCT.wikipedia.org/ , and a Liverpudlian one could have http://en-GB-LIV.wikipedia.org/ . A lot of people worked very hard for very long to make ISO 3166-2 acceptable to the governments that are accountable to most of the people on Earth. When a clean, neat way exists, why must we be so messy and exclusive of other peoples?

As far as coats of arms go, in many cases they have a very intimate relationship with their relevant flags and sometimes they can represent a palce better than its flag can. As long as a flag exists for an area and it is the one recognised by its government and its neighbours, I do not see why a coat of arms should replace it, but when such flags do not exist and such coats of arms do (especially when we already use those coats of arms in place of flags on the subject's own pages in Wikipedia), it seems quite logical to use them at least as an interim symbol. :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so dense, but I still do not understand what problem(s) you are trying to solve. Let me try and sort out your points; please tell me if I have not got it right:

1. It seems like you object to the existence and/or usage of some of the templates in Category:Flag templates. Fair enough, but there are guidelines that can help. To pick a template at random, you listed {{ABW}}. "ABW" is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code point for Aruba, so that's why that particular template name is used. If you look at its usage (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ABW), I see some pages that may or may not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags), but I don't see any action required on the part of this WikiProject. Edits should be made to the article(s) in question, but {{ABW}} is fine as-is.
2. Also on that list are some non-standard template names, such as {{CHN-PRC}} or {{CNG-Bra}}. Those are simple convenience shortcuts to produce alternate display links than the standard templates. If you want to go ahead and replace their transclusions with the {{flag}}-based equivalent and nominate the shortcuts at WP:TFD, then I would support that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what action you are suggesting.
3. You've listed the Canadian province shortcut templates (e.g. {{AB}}), but those templates are older than the current flag template system and have not been fully deprecated yet. I certainly do not think they should serve as a precedent for the creation of more second-level flag templates with shortcut names (such as Template:USA-CA for California, perhaps) but instead should be replaced and deleted, in my opinion. Again, if you want to proceed with that effort, feel free to be bold and make the replacements (e.g. {{AB}} → {{flag|Alberta}}. The same statements apply to {{BE-BRU}} et. al.
4. Your proposal for alternate wikis using ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codepoints is better discussed at WP:Village pump (proposals), perhaps, but not here.

Again, I ask you what is actionable by this WikiProject and not just something handled by enforcing MOS guidelines on individual pages, or something outside the scope of flag template development and maintenance? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What is actionable is to accept Indonesian provincial coats of arms as flag icons or suggest a better viable alternative. We accept Aruba even though it is neither one of the United Nations member states nor on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It, like England, should either be removed (which I do not think Wikipedians would accept) or it should be subsumed into a part of the Netherlands to reflect reality, allowing by NPOV, the addition of ID provinces JP prefectures, DE lands, AU states, etc. I wish someone could just tell me one place to discuss this. You keep bringing up different ones. This section is getting a little too big; is it not? Oops, out of time. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing several concepts. There is no consensus for using non-flag images (like coats-of-arms) where flag icons are typically used. If a particular nation does not have flags for its subnational entities, then so be it. As per the MOS, there are very few instances where a subnational flag icon is acceptable anyway. As for Aruba and England, if you have an issue with their flags being shown as icons on certain individual pages, then take it to those pages. You have the MOS guideline as justification for removal for many instances. However, the MOS certainly allows the flag of England to be used to identify the England national football team, which it does on thousands of articles. Finally, the reason I keep bringing up alternate pages for discussion is because you keep bringing up unrelated ideas. How can this particular WikiProject, concerned only with flag template implementation, help with the creation of a fr-CN-QC wiki? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, here is a direct, specific question that can help me understand what you are trying to do. As of 04:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC), there are 337 articles in main space that link to Central Java. In which of those articles, or under which circumstances, do you wish to preface that wikilink with an icon image of Image:Central Java-coa.PNG? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to read the MOS surrounding two points:

1. The validity of using flag icons for subnational divisons (like Alberta, Aruba, Central Java, England, or Massachusetts).
2. The use of non-flag images in place of flags for icons.

From the MOS, it seemed that both of these were neither totally prohibited nor totally accepted, but that room was allowed for community consensus. I wanted to seek community consensus. It seems that consensus is that subnational divisions are acceptable (as in Alberta, Aruba, England, etc.), so my first point seems concluded. My second point has been available here for comment and user:Andrwsc even posted it elsewhere, but Andrwsc is the only one to respond so far. All I can conclude from our discussion is that for the moment coats of arms are acceptable in terms of Indonesian provinces, until better permanent flags become available.

Specifically, I would like to have templates created that would allow me to attach the appropriate provincial coats of arms, or flags when they are available, as icons to the pages on the Malay Archipelago, Melanesia and Polynesia in their sections on geographical distribution. This would also require templates made for Papua New Guinean provinces as well as Australian and Filipino national subdivisions. I propose that the titles used for these conform to ISO 3166-2. I do not know the ISO 3166-2 code for West Papua (Papua Barat), because it is relatively new. I would really like to learn how to make these icons by myself.

Generally, I would like to see all pages linked to Central Java have the Central Java icon link on them. Thank you for all your work to improve Wikipedia. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect Thecurran, you seem to be concluding only what you want to conclude, not what any of the discussion or links (eg MOS) would logically lead anyone to conclude. For a start you say about your discussion with Andrwsc: "All I can conclude from our discussion is that for the moment coats of arms are acceptable in terms of Indonesian provinces, until better permanent flags become available." However to quote Andrwsc directly from this page: "There is no consensus for using non-flag images (like coats-of-arms) where flag icons are typically used. If a particular nation does not have flags for its subnational entities, then so be it." Another Andrwsc quote is from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags), where he says "There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Coats of Arms to support coat-of-arms images in flagicon-like size. I have replied there to my opposition to such an idea, but am also posting here to solicit more discussion as I don't think that WikiProject is on too many watchlists."

You have employed strange reasoning to suggest that the MOS says that subnational divisions are generally acceptable, when you say it is "neither totally prohibited nor totally accepted" and then, almost in the same breath, say "It seems that consensus is that subnational divisions are acceptable (as in Alberta, Aruba, England, etc.), so my first point seems concluded", despite the fact that the only opinion you have encountered so far is one that contradicted your own position. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance actually cautions against using subnational flags (it doesn't even mention coats of arms, which presumably should be used even more sparingly if at all as flagicons) except in very specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations makes various points about how Sovereignty itself can be a somewhat nebulous concept, and that for various purposes entities not usually considered nations might be considered so (as with England or with various overseas territories of colonial powers). Alberta might be a valid comparison to Central Java, but England certainly is not.

As Andrwsc has pointed out, the MOS says that "flag icons should Help the reader rather than decorate. I cannot imagine how coats-of-arms are anything but decorational. They are not readily recognized, and therefore, have negligible value as a navigation aid." He also asked you a specific question about where in particular a flagicon link to Central Java would be useful, and you eventually said "Generally, I would like to see all pages linked to Central Java have the Central Java icon link on them." I find it difficult to overstate how terrible this would look. Imagine putting flagicons of coats of arms in the middle of every paragraph on wikipedia that mentions and links to Central Java. Flags are only useful and only look good in certain circumstances, such as on this page 2006 FIFA World Cup, or this one United Nations member states.

I personally agree with every point Andrwsc has made in this discussion so far. I also think that your coat of arms flagicons, which you have obviously done a good job of compiling, would seem to be generally distracting rather than illuminating for wikipedia articles. As for attaching flagicons to Indonesian provinces to be added to (eg) this list: Polynesia#Island groups, it would make more sense to use the more recognisable (and more flag-like) flag of Indonesia, in the same way that the PNG flag has been used for the relevant regions of PNG in the list. Juwe (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the rules are inconclusive, but that general consensus allows Alberta, Aruba, and England, etc. Why is England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales more important than Al Baḩr al Aḩmar, California, Central Java, Massachusetts, or Western Australia? As far as the UN and associated bodies like the ISO, IPU, and ITU are concerned, there is no difference. The biggest difference England has over Central Java is more money, more English speakers, and more European people and more famous sports teams. If these are valid pre-requisites and they should not be, California is still more important than England. It has its own legislative branch, too. Just because many users on here support the English teams in the Commonwealth Games, the FIFA World Cup, Rugby, and cricket does not mean enough to give it this special status. There are Californian teams that are famous in NFL, NHL, NBA, and Baseball, yet we have no icon for them. If it is based on places that used to be separate independent nations, why is Texas not represented, nor the flag of the Haudenosaunee, or so many more former sovereign nations? I fear our pro-British double standards breach NPOV. I am glad to hear your opinions but why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?  :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My point isn't whether England is "more important" than California or not. This is something that is highly subjective and depends on the particular context. It is also completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what is useful to wikipedia articles. For example, the 2006 FIFA World Cup is clearly a notable topic that is within the scope of wikipedia. England was a competing team, its flag is recognisable and the use of the flag templates for competeing countries is useful to readers of the page. By contrast, I'm not convinced that the the use of a rather less recognisable US State flag to represent a sports team from one of the cities within that State (ie not even the State itself) would be quite so useful to a wikipedia user. Nonetheless, it might be demonstrated that such US State flag icons might be useful in some context for some particular wikipedia page, in which case their use would be valid. I have yet to see an example where your coat of arms icons would be useful rather than distracting (for reasons already given) hence my reservations about the creation of a coat of arms template. Juwe (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat a point I made earlier. Thecurran's category of subnational entities compares apples and oranges. For example, Aruba and England compete internationally in several sports and other events, but Alberta, California and Central Java do not. Therefore, there are many more instances where the flags of Aruba and England are used on Wikipedia—in compliance with the MOS, of course. The only two instances where I have seen {{flagicon|Alberta}}, {{flagicon|Florida}}, or {{flagicon|Western Australia}} used in a MOS-compliant way is for sporting events such as the Tim Hortons Brier or the Little League World Series, or the Pacific Cup, or in infoboxes for articles like Daytona Beach, Florida and Drumheller, Alberta. It's not a question of "status" or "wealth" at all—it's a question of utility. You'll also find {{flagicon|Sandaun}} on articles like Lido, Papua New Guinea, so it's not like there is some conspiracy against certain nations.

I asked you before to name some specific instances of where you'd like to see an icon before a wikilink to Central Java. Your reply mentioned three articles:

1. Malay Archipelago—to be honest, I don't think this article needs any more icons than the seven inside the infobox. the article looks fine as is.
2. Melanesia—this article needs some significant cleanup. The use of icons (both flags and coats-of-arms) is non-compliant with several points in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). They are used as a replacement for prose text, which is terrible style.
3. Polynesia—used now in the "Island groups" section, but I don't see any necessary changes. The article looks fine.

You also said I would like to see all pages linked to Central Java have the Central Java icon link on them, but as Juwe pointed out, that will never happen. We don't put an icon in front of the hundreds of thousands of wikilinks to United States either—for very good reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)