Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template/Archive 02)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Chaldean in topic Country date Iraq
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

11 December 2006 icons broken

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

If you notice that flag icons have vanished, it may be because User:Centrx has edited a protected template which is part of the flag icon tools. Some flag icons have been broken. The user claims there was discussion in numerous forums, although apparently not here. (SEWilco 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

The change has been reverted. (SEWilco 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

So when is this template mess going to be fixed? There are four layers of these templates, starting from the level of {{USA}}; this is not necessary to be within template expansion limits. —Centrx→talk • 09:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain: "this is not necessary to be within template expansion limits". I don't understand that part. --Ligulem 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
See #Major code cleanup request. A reason for needing templates within templates is that there cannot be more than 2MB of templates on a page (though to me this seems like a limit that could never be reached with a reasonable use of flags on an article). This limit, however, would only require one level of templates within templates, not three. —Centrx→talk • 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Replacing this template system with some fat switch(es) would be a bad idea (see Sherool's post further up). The current system is complex but technically effective and quite efficient, especially with regards to Wikipedia:Template limits. It is also extensible, which switches aren't (you can add new templates – with a switch you have to edit the template containing the switch and adding cases). The vandalism problem that comes with having many templates can be addressed by protecting. The complexity by documenting/explaining. --Ligulem 00:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
A "fix" requires a technology which you find acceptable. Maybe someone is working on the "data" concept which Jimbo mentioned over a year ago. (SEWilco 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Ideas for reworking

Latest comment: 17 years ago103 comments6 people in discussion
(Inserted section title "Ideas for reworking" right above --Ligulem 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Given that these templates are sometimes called hundreds of times on a single page I agree that converting to a few switches (or indeed just one large template) would quickly exceed the 2MB transclusion limit. However, another possibility occurs to me. Currently the 'AUS' template calls 'Country alias AUS' to set "Australia", 'Country flag alias AUS' to set "Flag of Australia.svg" and 'Country label alias AUS' to set... "AUS". Plus a couple of intermediate templates to define the format of the final output. Why couldn't 'AUS' instead set the parameters 'name=Australia', 'flag=Flag of Australia.svg', and 'label=AUS' and just pass those to the format template? The total transcluded size is virtually the same (indeed, possibly smaller since the parameter names are shorter than the template names), but we've removed three extra templates for every country. A ridiculous amount of work to do, but it would vastly decrease the number of templates involved. The only other options are to use fewer flags on a page (in which case the #switch method would be workable) or, as Ligulem said, someone has to track down and protect all of these templates. --CBD 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please post the exact new code you propose and the name of the template this code is for? I would like to know the details before trying to understand and commenting. Thanks :-). Per the protecting: see my admin log. I've worked through them a bit by starting from main page links and using the new transcluded protection status display feature (bugzilla:8392). --Ligulem 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See Template:Xyzistan for an example of how the method I describe would work. That calls an 'action' template (just as Template:Country does) which currently defaults to User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4... which is a reworking of Template:Country_flagcountry designed to work with supplied parameters. If the 'Xyzistan' template were called with an 'action=flag' parameter set then another template, parallel to Template:Country_flag, would be called and so on for the various options supported by the current template... I only built the one example for now. If different aliases were desired a Template:XYZ or Template:Democratic Republic of Xyzistan could be set up the same way or as just a redirect to 'Xyzistan'. Basically this works the same as the current setup except all of the 'Country alias', 'Country flag alias', 'Country label alias', and 'Country shortname alias' templates are removed and replaced by parameters in the top level templates... which also combine the functionality of things like Template:USA and Template:Country. Roughly the same transcluded size... just ALOT fewer templates. Easily less than 25% of what the current system requires. --CBD 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I'm still in the phase of "need to understand more". What I don't see from your proposal is, what should for example happen to template:flagicon. I once did a dissection for the call "{{flagicon|USA}}", which goes like this: 

{{#if: {{{1|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
{{country_flagicon|{{{1}}}|size={{{size|}}}}}
}}

So "{{flagicon|USA}}" ( ) is 

{{#if: USA
|{{country_flagicon|USA|size={{{size|}}}}}
}}

which is the same as 

{{country_flagicon|USA|size=}}

[[Image:{{country flag alias {{{1}}}}}|{{#if:{{{size|}}}|{{{size}}}|22x20px}}|{{country alias {{{1}}}}}]]

So "{{country_flagicon|USA|size=}}" is 

[[Image:{{country flag alias USA}}|{{#if:||22x20px}}|{{country alias USA}}]]

which is the same as 

[[Image:{{country flag alias USA}}|22x20px|{{country alias USA}}]]

So "[[Image:{{country flag alias USA}}|22x20px|{{country alias USA}}]]" is 

[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|22x20px|United States]]

--Ligulem 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what I don't understand from this dissection is: what's the purpose of "|United States" in "[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|22x20px|United States]]", which comes from "|{{country alias {{{1}}}}}" in template:country_flagicon? Could that part of template:country_flagicon not simply be removed, thereby eliminating the dependency from template:flagicon to the country alias X templates? --Ligulem 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Stupid me: this is the caption text supplied for the image's alt attribute (per Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Syntax for images with no automatic caption or formatting). Apologies for posting before researching... --Ligulem 10:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW 2: template:country_flagicon uses only parameters {{{1}}} and {{{size}}}. What is the purpose for template:flagicon feeding parameter {{{2}}} with the same value as {{{1}}} to template:country_flagicon? --Ligulem 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I've changed the template and adjusted my dissection above. --Ligulem 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, to answer your last question first... I agree that the '2' parameter doesn't do anything on 'flagicon' and expect that it was copied from similar variants where the flag image is followed by an abbreviation code. I've noticed a few little things like that which could be 'tightened up' in the current system.
As to the change I am proposing... instead of a call to {{flagicon|USA}} the user would now invoke {{USA|action=flagicon}}. The 'USA' template would be the same layout as my 'Xyzistan' template above (or a redirect to such a template). It would thus look something like;
{{{{{action|User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4}}}
|flag=Flag of the United States.svg
|size={{{size|22x20px}}}
|alias=United States
|name=United States
|shortname=United States
|label=USA}}
I think some of the whole alias/name/shortname redundancy can probably be removed, but I haven't analyzed all the sub-templates yet to verify that. The 'action' and other named parameters could also probably be changed to just '1', '2', '3', et cetera to simplify and shorten the template calls. Anyway, since 'action' (or '1') is set to 'flagicon' in this case we would call a 'flagicon' template... which would be essentially the same as the current Template:Country_flagicon except that it would take the 'flag' and other parameters above instead of looking up the contents of template:country flag alias USA and the like... just as User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4 is a reworking of Template:Country_flagcountry to use the parameters rather than sub-templates. Thus, under the proposed system each of the 'Template:Country_<action>' templates would be rewritten to accept parameters instead of looking up sub-templates. We could probably even keep the same template names and temporarily recode them to accept either format to make the transition easier. --CBD 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Ok. So your point is that flagicon wouldn't be used anymore.... So your idea is to package all data about "USA" into a single data template called "USA" that can be combined with a set of "data using" or "action" templates. Not bad (this is a recurring template pattern [1] :-). Give me some more time to ruminate this. One point: I do have a bit a strange feeling about the "size" parameter in your USA data template. This is a "feed through" to the action template as I understand it. So the default value "22x20px" should be in the specific "action" template not in the data template (?). Maybe we can find some better way on this corner. Need to think about this more... --Ligulem 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record: The current system does have the advantage, that if new "actions" that require additional data-parameters (lines in CBD's "USA" template) are added, these parameter values can be added to the wiki by just creating additional templates (containing these values alone). So the existing system is "better" with regards to extensibility. With CBD's "all data per country in one template" approach, all data templates must be changed (example: say we create a new action that requires a "population" parameter. "population" would have to be added on all USA, etc. templates). However that's exactly one of the drawbacks of the current system as well: an abundance of templates. Sigh. --Ligulem 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the 'flagicon' template could be kept and just changed around to call the appropriate 'country specific' template with 'flagicon' as the 'action' parameter. That'd allow backwards compatibility with existing links, but be rather redundant... though actually having both 'flagicon' and 'country' currently is similarly redundant. As to '22x20px'... it needs to be set in the top level parameter to avoid being blanked out. That is, if the user did not set a 'size' parameter then Template:Xyzistan would set parameter size to blank... which is not the same as unset. The lower level templates would then use that 'blank' value and ignore the default since a 'value' (of 'blank') WAS set. Finally, on extensibility... having to add one new 'population' template for each alias of each country would probably be about as much work as adding a 'population' parameter to each existing template for each non-redirect alias of each country. The only way to get rid of THAT 'mass edits to add new feature' problem would be to go to a 'switch' based system. --CBD 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick stupid question: If I look at the articles, I see all these small icons. So most uses of this template system here is displaying a small flag icon on an article page. So what do we need to know to display such a small icon? We need a common size and the name of the image for the flag and the alt text. So why don't we simply create a template:smallflag Italy, containing: 

[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|{{smallflagsize}}|Flag of Italy]]

and a template:smallflagsize containing "22x20px" and replace the current calls on articles for small flags? I bet this would cover 90% of current usage taking load off this current system. --Ligulem 14:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Something like that would be fine with me. People would have to manually create their Italy and ITA links... resulting in those and the image caption text not always being consistent or correctly disambiguated, but not TOO big a deal. Even some of that could be dealt with by putting one or two options into the template to display the links. All of the complexity of the current system comes from standardized formatting for several different display options... if that was all or mostly handled manually it'd be alot simpler. BTW, the 'smallflagsize' template wouldn't really be needed in the example above... just code the 22x20px into the 'smallflag Italy' template directly. --CBD 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You've worked your way back to the hardcoded templates for each abbreviation which existed before these the flag templates existed. Did you read the original Village pump discussion? It is archived on this page.[2] Changing the size would then require that all the hardcoded templates be identified and edited; the size already had to be adjusted once in the templates. (SEWilco 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
If global size changes are a desired capability then Ligulem's idea of a separate 'smallflagsize' template for just that value would probably be the best way to go. I think it is really a matter of determining what capabilities are desired / most needed. I would describe the scope of the current system as 'four templates or redirects per country alias plus two templates per display configuration'. I have been suggesting that the same capabilities could be achieved with 'one template or redirect per country alias plus one template per display configuration'. Ligulem took out all the text formatting options to get it down to 'one template or redirect per country alias plus one image size template'. For either of the latter two options the big gain is in losing the multiple templates for each alias. I think that would be much more managable. The only way to reduce it further would be to force users to always call the template with the same alias or add big 'switch' statements that would cause problems with mass transclusions. --CBD 09:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
SEWilco, I've read that discussion now. The current system is technically ingenious and its not bad for the servers (as long as we don't have a massive vandal attack editing all templates within the same few minutes). Thing is, people do have problems to understand the current system and three or four times 1'500 templates for 1'500 flags is a lot. However, I don't think we should try to reduce the number of templates at all cost. Per CBD's "data" template: I've thought about this and slept a night over it. The more I think of it the more bad feeling I have about it. CBD's USA example above here is rather complicated as well (compared to the existing system). The problem I think I'm able to articulate at the moment about it is, that I fear it is difficult for people to maintain all 1'500 data templates consistent (we currently have about 1'500 different flags in the current system [3]). Also, as already noted, I'm especially not pleased about the size handling in CBD's data template. Per the "quick stupid" proposal by me, that was a radical attempt at a minimalistic solution. Maybe we could include a size parameter to make it a little bit more versatile:
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|{{{size| {{smallflagsize}} }}}|Flag of Italy]]
But then, we start having the same "keep it consistent over 1500 templates" problem again. People will copy these templates when they want a new flag. If someone introduces a slight variant of that, uniformity is lost again. Today, people copy things like template:USA which currently is {{country|flagcountry|United States}} and they get redlinks for the missing data templates and fill the missing data in (Demonstration: throwaway Template:LigulemLand, which shows the redlinks for the missing templates). Besides creating 4 templates for a single flag ({{LigulemLand}}, {{Country flag alias LigulemLand}}, {{Country alias LigulemLand}} and {{Country shortname alias LigulemLand}}), a good solution to keep everything consistent, including the names of the created templates. In short: I'm not sure what to do with the current system. --Ligulem 10:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Or when they create a new flag they fill in the missing data in countryedit. (SEWilco 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
Name: "USA" ISO: "USA" IOC: "USA"
Item Usage Content Edit Description
Flag   {{country_flag_alias_USA}} Edit Image of flag
Article {{country_alias_USA}} {{country_alias_USA}} Edit Article name
Label {{country_label_alias_USA}} {{country_label_alias_USA}} Edit Short label (ie, ISO abbrev.)
Common name {{country_shortname_alias_USA}} {{country_shortname_alias_USA}} Edit Common short name
ISO country code usage
Code:Country {{country_ISO_code_alias_USA}} Edit ISO country code for USA
Code:ISO {{country_ISO_code_alias_USA}} Edit ISO country code for USA
Flag {{country_flag_ISO_alias_USA}} {{country_flag_ISO_alias_USA}} Edit Flag image for {{ISO|flag|ISOabbrev}}
Article {{country_ISO_alias_USA}} {{country_ISO_alias_USA}} Edit Article name for {{ISO|flag|ISOabbrev}}
Olympic Games usage
Flag {{country_flag_IOC_alias_USA}} {{country_flag_IOC_alias_USA}} Edit IOC flag image
Article   United States {{country_IOC_alias_USA}} Edit Article name for IOC use
Ahh. Ok. A factory tool for creating new flags. Nice technical solution. --Ligulem 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the consistency problem. If the top level template JUST passes parameters to another template then when people copy that to a new country any 'changes' they make would have to be outside the template call (which is possible under any structure) OR would require updates to the sub-template... which is shared by all the other countries and thus any changes to it will be reflected in the others and can be reviewed for consistency / consensus. If all the formatting code were in the top level as per your suggestion then each template could be formatted independently. The 'size handling' can be done with a sub-template in ANY of the systems (including the current one) if that is preferred. Finally, after looking at the various 'action' formats I'm thinking that it might be possible to build a fairly compact single sub-template to handle all of them... which would mean one template/redirect per country alias and then just one other template for setting the default size and formatting the output. Only problem would be keeping it small enough to allow mass transclusion, but I think it is doable. --CBD 11:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about errors like "|shortnam=United States" instead of "|shortname=United States" or missing parameters because someone deleted it and somone else copied the error. Whatever. The default size should not be hardcoded, so at least let's have:
{{{{{action|User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4}}}
|flag=Flag of the United States.svg
|size={{{size|{{defaultflagsize}} }}}
|alias=United States
|name=United States
|shortname=United States
|label=USA}}
or something (I don't care about the name of the templates). Maybe a test implementation could help to gather some real experience? For example, we could copy European Union to Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template/tests/European Union and implement the flags for that page using CBD's data/action template system (duly marking the new templates as not released for general use on articles yet). --Ligulem 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A while ago, Jimbo Wales wanted a data tool which could store information such as the capitol of a country. Anyone know if something (Wikidata/WikiTextrose?) is close to going live? (SEWilco 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
I haven't heard anything, but I doubt it is coming any time soon. Single logon and stable versions are the two big projects currently in the pipeline. --CBD 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-templates

Currently this system can access the following 'action' subtemplates:

  1. codeISO - Virtually unused. Output format = 'XYZ'
  2. flagISO - Virtually unused. Output format =   XYZ
  3. flagIOC - Virtually unused. Output format =   XYZ
  4. flag - Output format =   XYZ (optional 'name' parameter to change link display)
  5. flagcountry - Output format =   Xyzistan (optional 'name' parameter to change link display)
  6. flagcountrycat - Virtually unused. Output format = Same as above plus adds to Category Xyzistan (optional 'name' parameter to change sort key)
  7. flagicon - Output format =  
  8. infobox - Virtually unused. Small table with 'data' subtemplates that do not appear to have been created.
  9. name - Virtually unused. Output format = Xyzistan

Leaving out the six options that aren't really used that leaves 'flag', 'flagcountry' and 'flagicon'. The only differences between these are that 'flagicon' does not provide a link to the country article, 'flagcountry' uses the image tooltip 'Flag of <place>' rather than just '<place>', and 'flag' displays the abbreviation (e.g. 'XYZ') by default instead of the name (e.g. 'Xyzistan') on the link. I'm assuming that the inconsistency on the image tooltip isn't intentional/relevant and the only real formatting variation here is the link to the country article at the end... either don't show it, default the text to 'XYZ', or default the text to 'Xyzistan'. All of which could easily be handled with a single parameter. --CBD 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the list. Per the "image tooltip": this is the "alt" parameter for the <img> html element, which is useful for users that turn off pictures in their browsers or for users that use a screen reader like user:Graham87. For example, reading "Flag of Italy" as the alt text makes probably more sense than just "Italy". --Ligulem 13:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I put the tooltip in with 'Flag of', combined it all in to one template (Currently at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4), and set up my fictional country of 'Xyzistan' as a test case:
  1. {{XYZ}} = {{XYZ}}
  2. {{XYZ|icon|size=30px}} = {{Xyzistan|icon|size=30px}}
  3. {{Xyzistan|label}} = {{Xyzistan|label}}
  4. {{Xyzistan|Democratic Republic of Xyzistan}} = {{Xyzistan|Democratic Republic of Xyzistan}}
The final template at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4 is still fairly compact. I didn't create a separate 'smallflagsize' template because the size is now set only in this single template for all uses. Thoughts? --CBD 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Off topic: I think I'm signing off here and leave this to the real experts. Cheers, --Ligulem 14:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and put this into practice as Template:Flag icon and converted Template:USA (probably the most widely used example of the present system) to call that. The transcluded size in this case is actually smaller and the system requires transclusion of two templates instead of six. The only significant 'drawback' (other than the work needed to retool everything) I see is that things like Template:United States are already in use. However, if we settled on a standard of making the base template the three letter ISO code (almost all of which seem to have templates in the existing system) and convert all other existing 'aliases' to a format of '<alias> flag' (e.g. Template:United States flag) as redirects to the default three letter code then I think this should be workable. --CBD 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Duh. Ok. Just noting that after the first call of {{flagicon|USA}} has been changed to {{USA|icon}} (and we don't know if that already has happened somewhere by the time I write this), your edit to template:USA can no longer be reverted without breaking articles. Let me know if I shall fire up my MWB... (awaiting consensus). --Ligulem 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I'm not too worried. After all, other than people who have been following this thread who exactly would even think/know to DO that? As the output is identical, chances are that no one else has even noticed the change yet. I'm tempted to just go ahead and convert all variants of the U.S. flag over, but waiting on any comments about potential drawbacks to this system. --CBD 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Conflicts such as {{United States}} were referred to in the original Village Pump discussion, and is why the "flag" and "country_" prefixes were selected. It's just not safe to restrict the name of a country to being a magic word. (SEWilco 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Template:flag icon comparison

So by using the changed template:USA, which uses the new template:flag icon (note the space), we could now do:

New call Old call(s) Remarks
{{USA}} =   United States (unchanged) {{USA}} =   United States

{{country|flagcountry|USA}} = {{country|flagcountry|USA}}

{{USA|icon}} =   United States {{flagicon|USA}} =  
{{USA|icon|size=40px}} =   United States {{flagicon|USA|size=40px}} =  
{{USA|label}} =   United States {{country|flag|USA}} = {{country|flag|USA}}
{{USA|Some special link text}} =   United States {{country|flagcountry|USA|name=Some special link text}} = {{country|flagcountry|USA|name=Some special link text}}

Feel free to edit the above table. --Ligulem 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd guess that this was meant to represent that 'USA' was also a working template under the current system before being changed over. --CBD 09:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An invariant. Calls {{USA}} wouldn't have to be changed under CBD's system. Maybe I simply shouldn't have added this row :-). Sorry for the confusion. --Ligulem 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Above I changed "flagcountry|United States" to "flagcountry|USA" so all the same name are used. (SEWilco 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Let's try another one. (SEWilco 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

New call Old call(s) Remarks
{{United States of America flag}} = {{United States of America flag}} {{United States of America}} = {{United States of America}}

{{country|flagcountry|United States of America}} = {{country|flagcountry|United States of America}}

{{United States of America flag|icon}} = {{United States of America flag|icon}} {{flagicon|United States of America}} =  
{{United States of America flag|icon|size=40px}} = {{United States of America flag|icon|size=40px}} {{flagicon|United States of America|size=40px}} =  
{{United States of America flag|label}} = {{United States of America flag|label}} {{country|flag|United States of America}} = {{country|flag|United States of America}}
{{United States of America flag|Some special link text}} = {{United States of America flag|Some special link text}} {{country|flagcountry|United States of America|name=Some special link text}} = {{country|flagcountry|United States of America|name=Some special link text}}

Let's try {{United States}} all by itself. (SEWilco 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)) {{United States}}


Hmm. CBD's data templates can be named to "SOME PREFIX XXX". For example "Flagdata USA". BTW the current system didn't stop people from using template:USA. The "discrepancy" template:USA / template:United States already exists now. I assume people won't stop using that. As I understand it, template:USA isn't even a part of SEWilco's flag template system, so changing template:USA and adding template:flag icon doesn't touch SEWilco's flag template system. But I admit, replacing calls {{flagicon|USA}} with {{USA|icon}} would, and this would introduce more calls into the naming discrepancy SEWilco is criticizing and which his system solves. Couldn't that problem on the CBD system be addressed by using template:Flagdata USA and creating a front end template:flagicon2 or something? (Don't bite me about this naming, we could copy the contents of the recently created template:flag icon to template:flag icon formatter and then reuse the name "flag icon" for the CBD front end. So the updated replacement would then be:
CBD style call: {{flag icon|USA}}, which replaces the SEWilco style call: {{flagicon|USA}}. --Ligulem 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
SEWilco, ONLY the 'USA' template has been set up in the new format... ergo, of course the examples above do not do anything yet. However, there is nothing preventing us from setting those up... which would be one template for each alias instead of the current three or four. As I said previously, the problem with some of the templates, like 'United States', currently being in use could be fixed the same way it is in the current system... by using something like 'United States flag' as the standard name. If we always add 'flag' to the end (or front, or some other term) then there should not be much overlap. On the existing 'flagicon' template... when all the countries are set up that could just be re-coded to call the new 'flag icon' template with the parameters in the right place... all of the existing calls to 'flagicon' could be left completely unchanged. --CBD 11:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor point: If we use common prefixes instead of suffixes (for example "Flagdata United States" instead of "United States flag)", listing all templates would be easier. For example, if we would use the common prefix "Flagdata" – as in template:Flagdata USA – listing all flag data templates could be done by using Special:Prefixindex with this query. This would be closer to the style of SEWilco's current system. Of course, a suffix naming system can as well be enumerated by adding the templates to a category. Another even smaller point is that templates using the same prefix are listed together in the edit mode of an article. See the list of transcluded pages here. --Ligulem 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. I was going with the suffix because "United States flag" sounds ok as a name. On prefixes, I'd prefer to keep it short given that this would be something the user has to type in for each call... {{flagdata United States}} would work, but is there a reason not to use {{flag United States}}? Of course, if we keep the 'multiple entry points' of the current system's Template:Country, Template:Flagicon, Template:Flag, et cetera then the prefix could be automatically add in the code of those (see other comment below for more info on this). --CBD 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a Template:United States of America flag redirect to Template:USA and updated the table above to show how this is intended to work. The 'United States' template would instead be Template:United States flag. There is no problem of 'name overlap' here... the same system of using prefixes/suffixes employed by the current system works just as well for the proposed. --CBD 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the need for Template:Flagdata United States, etc. I'm of the opinion that we create templates such as Template:USA that calls on Template:Flag icon, and leave it at that. The reason we're revisiting the issue is that the list of transcluded templates is already extremely long and the current system is too complicated. Adding redirects for every country, and essentially creating more work and a more complex system seems contrary to the goals of these discussions. I know some people are concerned about usability, people are smart enough to figure out that all flags are using a three-letter, and when they try to use something different, it obviously won't work. There could a nicely laid-out directory of the templates, and that would enable everyone to look up what template to use. Template redirects make things more complicated, and they make the list of transcluded templates longer. --MZMcBride 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
SEWilco can probably better explain the motivation behind the current naming system. But if you look at this section of Andre Agassi, you'll see calls of {{flagicon|USA}}. These would have to be replaced by {{USA|icon}} using CBD's pure proposal. Now that's fine, because template:USA is already in use as a flag template and can be reused for CBD's system because the existing parameterless calls {{USA}} are compatible with CBD's version of the template. Thing is, there is no uniform naming system when using the "direct" templates like template:USA. So it could be that you would have to replace the fictive {{flagicon|Ligulemland}} with {{Ligulemland something|icon}} if fictive template:Ligulemland happens to have already been taken for a list of the fast food restaurants. This is the case for template:United States, which was already taken for a navigation box. The example of United States is somewhat lame as template:USA can be used instead. One of the reasons for the current admittedly difficult to understand system is – as I understand it – to also provide some uniform naming system. So I guess it was probably the original intent to replace calls to template:USA with {{country|flagcountry|USA}} or at least provide {{country|flagcountry|United States}} for the already lost template:United States (a navigation box). I hope this makes some sense. Apologies if I might have increased the confusion. --Ligulem 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You're repeating the process which created the flag templates. The USA template (history) existed before it used the flag templates. The existence of the numerous differing flag definitions caused problems. The "country_" prefix was chosen for the data template array for the same reason you realized, so as to group them together alphabetically. The different aliases for countries were created because this is an editor's tool and editors can't be expected to remember the proper incantations for all countries so they have some common choices. If people want to replace {{USA}} with a more formal tool that's their choice; I am not aware of anyone examining whether {{USA}} is obsolete or not. This flag project specifically states that better technology is expected to replace this mess, and I consider Flagicon|USA to be a marker for future replacement by the better tool. Examine the characteristics of this tool and figure out if you're talking about a better tool. (SEWilco 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
On the matter of converting {{flagicon|USA}} calls to {{USA|icon}}... again, that wouldn't really be required if we didn't want to do it. Once all the templates and redirects were set up the 'code' of Template:flagicon could be retooled to something like {{flagdata {{{1}}}|size={{{size|}}}}}... allowing all the existing calls to continue working. It'd mean an extra template transcluded for those calls, but still have less of that than the current system. --CBD 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Format template

Instead of thinking of a 'smallflagsize' template, consider thinking of a 'flagformat' template. It might have only the size, but it might have other flag format fields. A common use of templates is consistent formatting, and perhaps the formatting can be defined in one place. (SEWilco 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

See Template:Flag icon... which is exactly what you describe above; a single template for all the formatting options covered by the current structure. Examples of its use can be seen in the section immediately above with the various 'Xyzistan' links. --CBD 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If we were able to find a way to implement image redirects, either through javascript or a change to MediaWiki, these problems could be eliminated. You could have the standard Image:Flag of Australia.svg, but then also have redirects from Image:Flag of AUS.svg and Image:Flag of Commonwealth of Australia.svg, and all other variants, and then a template could simple use [[Image:Flag of {{{1}}}.svg|22x20px|{{{label|{{{1}}}}}}]] and it would solve the problem of the number of templates altogether. You would have a single template that could be used for any flag. So, are there any thoughts on a way to implement image redirection?
By the way, after reading the discussion above, I think using the system with country codes and having 1500 individual templates is too complicated, and should only be done if there would be a dedicated bot that would watch all of the templates and check for uniformity and be able to change all the templates en masse whenever changes across the flags were desired. --MZMcBride 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
CBD's template:flag icon would reduce the number of templates from currently three times 1500 (considering the typical usage of the current system) to just 1500. All data for a specific flag would be kept in a single data template (example: template:USA) instead of having three data templates per flag with the current system. The formatting algorithm is stored in a single place at template:flag icon. --Ligulem 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that sounds pretty reasonable. Though the image redirection, if ever possible, would really reduce it to one template, which beats 1500 and 1500*3. I've been involved in the discussion on the technical village pump about flag icons, and I'm just looking for any way to reduce the number. So, an implementation of CBD's idea sounds great. --MZMcBride 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the meaning of the reference of 3*1500? The first mention of 1500 says there are 1500. (SEWilco 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
Ligulem mentioned that it currently requires about three templates per flag (Country flag alias, etc.) and that 1500 templates would be better than "three times 1500" templates. --MZMcBride 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah. So if the "image redirection" ever appears, that would replace perhaps 1500 templates with 1500 image redirections. Minus the 300 or so actual images. (SEWilco 06:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
You're "looking for any way to reduce the number". So your only goal is a smaller number. Which features are you willing to sacrifice? (SEWilco 06:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
If we can reduce the number of templates, that would be fine. I don't think we need to "sacrifice" much. Can't we have one data template instead of three (or more) per flag? --Ligulem 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, which of the features of the current system do you want to keep and which do you want to change? (SEWilco 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
CBD's proposal reduces the number of templates and the complexity of the current system. So that's an improvement. So if there aren't any objections against CBD's proposed change, we can implement it as soon as we have consensus. It's as simple as that. What are the features of the current system? Which features would "break" with CBD's simplification? --Ligulem 10:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was looking to change the features at all. My only goal was to reduce the number of templates transcluded so it'll be easier to do protections/unprotections when articles with these flags appear on the Main page... and so people might stop doing the WP:AUM dance. My position is that I think we can replicate the existing functionality with fewer total templates, fewer templates transcluded per call, and a smaller transclusion 'footprint'. The 'data array' approach was solid, but parserfunctions are a 'new' (relatively) technology which should allow the same capabilities in a more compact form. Still not a 'final' / 'perfect' solution by any means, but possibly worth implementing. --CBD 09:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
SEWilco, the whole thing could be done as a single template for all countries with a big 'switch' statement, but that would impose a lower limit on the number of flags per page so we didn't do that. Which features do you think are sacrificed by the proposed system? I tried to set it up so that it can retain all the existing capabilities... and even all the existing template calls in the articles if we don't want to convert those. --CBD 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing USA flag calls

Ok. So now we have CBD's template:USA as discussed above. Can we now put this into use on the articles and go orphanning Template:Country alias USA, Template:Country alias United States, Template:Country flag alias USA, Template:Country flag alias United States, and Template:Country shortname alias USA for a start? Can we now replace the calls as shown in the table below?

New call Old call
{{USA|icon}} =   United States {{flagicon|USA}} =  
{{USA|icon|size=40px}} =   United States {{flagicon|USA|size=40px}} =  
{{USA|label}} =   United States {{country|flag|USA}} = {{country|flag|USA}}
{{USA|Some special link text}} =   United States {{country|flagcountry|USA|name=Some special link text}} = {{country|flagcountry|USA|name=Some special link text}}

I say yes. The new system uses less templates and reduces the complexity. Any objections to put this into use for the USA flag now? I'm volunteering to do this, with the help of my WP:AWB fork (no bot run, manually checking every diff before saving). --Ligulem 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you proposing? First list which features of the current system you're willing to keep and which you're willing to get rid of. (SEWilco 16:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
This is a trap question right? I think my proposal is clear. And the motivation has been discussed. --Ligulem 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
To give a specific example: on Andre Agassi, I would replace all calls of {{flagicon|USA}} with {{USA|icon}} (sandbox edit). The resulting page would no longer use Template:Country alias USA and Template:Country flag alias USA. It would instead use template:USA and template:flag icon. The latter would be shared as soon as other flags have been converted. But I'm only asking for USA at the moment. As a first step. --Ligulem 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not clear what you are proposing. The announcement which you put on several templates does not make clear that you are only referring to the "USA" usage, as opposed to using "USA" as an example of a template call.[4] [5] [6] In order to orphan Template:Country flag alias United States you'll also replace things like {{flagicon|United States}}, requiring "USA" for all calls. You also aren't listing which features of the current system you'll affect and which you won't affect. Perhaps you should ask in the talk pages of Andre Agassi and several other pages which you'll affect. Such as Chicago Cubs, Formula One, List of terrorist incidents, Organization of American States, Tour de France, United Nations Security Council. (SEWilco 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
Again... so far as I can see all currently used features will be supported. If there is some capability you think isn't covered by Template:Flag icon please say what it is and we can look at it. If you think the current configuration has advantages over the proposed please say what those are and we can discuss them. You mention 'USA' only being allowed, but Ligulem had already proposed 'flagdata United States' (though I might prefer the shorter 'flag United States') for variants other than the three letter codes. Also, again, I think that all current template calls in Andre Agassi and the other pages you list could be left completely unchanged - by redoing {{country}}, {{flagicon}}, {{country flagcountry}}, and so forth as calls to the appropriate country template... basically just a matter of reshuffling the parameters passed in, as demonstrated in one of my previous comments. If Ligulem is offering to do the work of converting them all to direct calls instead I don't see a problem with that, but please indicate what it might be if you do. --CBD 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect SEWilco wants to keep the current system without any change. If that's the case, then it would at least be fair to say so. We can then spare us the time argumenting here. The current system can be improved as has been laid out on this talk page. Not improving here is a lost chance in anticipating dissent from other wikipedians. People have already complained about the complexity of the current system. Some of them are also against having flags on the articles. Keeping the current system unchanged is ammunition for them. Best regards, --Ligulem 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I want this to change. I defined these Flag Templates as being temporary until better tools become available. Is this a better tool, when you're still figuring out what is needed? (SEWilco 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
I'm figuring out what is needed? --Ligulem 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing this in favor of User:Ligulem/work/flag templates rework. See below. --Ligulem 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country name alias

As I read this discussion, I saw that you where afraid of the include size, thus I checked on the template I made before, and specially it's talk page where the template is used seven times, the result in the source code is: 

<!--
Pre-expand include size: 62319 bytes
Post-expand include size: 2095 bytes
Template argument size: 424 bytes
Maximum: 2048000 bytes
-->

→AzaToth 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another variant

Hi chaps. I've started hacking on a replacement using the same frontend templates as the current system but using CBD's shared data template idea. See User:Ligulem/work/flag templates rework. Not yet complete (ISO is missing), but isn't this a damn sexy data page? :-) --Ligulem 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. When did they allow recursive parameter substitution so country_data would work? I tried that, and using a variable to invoke a template was specifically forbidden. Where is the limit on recursiveness defined, so we can ensure we won't encounter it? Storing all the country info in one place has always been desirable. And Template:Country data FRA redirects to Template:Country data France so there is only one copy of country data. (SEWilco 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
You should give a summary of the features (and function for those who are not template programmers). Looks to me like the main feature is that there is a single template with the data for each country (such as country_data_France) which is wrapped within user functions (such as country2) which call country_data_* with parameters which trigger display templates (such as country_flag2). The major features seem to be storage of all country data in one place (which can have country renaming aliases redirected to it), and consistent appearance of the flag icons. Looks like other info, such as the capitol of a country, could also be stored if there is such info which needs this kind of editor access. (SEWilco 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for looking into this. "...for those who are not template programmers" – Man, I always had a hard time to follow what you did on templates. So please don't tell me you are not a template programmer :-). BTW I'm not sure I broke some unwritten rules with what I did (recursive parameter substitution? I didn't notice I used that...), but I don't have a bad feeling. However, some careful examination by the template gurus here might be a good idea. I will try to add the remaining missing features (country|flagISO, country|flagIOC - haven't looked into this yet), so this might then be plugged into current usage on articles by switching calls over from the xxx to xxx2 templates. The new system can be kept in parallel to the existing one, so we could prepare all data templates that are needed for a certain article and switch that article over and then extend this to more articles. BTW feel free to edit in my userspace as you see fit (page moving included). --Ligulem 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to explain it to those who are reading this and trying to figure out whether they like the new method, without their having to understand every detail. I think I figured it out, which is why I tried to summarize it. So there are basically three template incantations for each call? The invocation, the country_data, and the formatter? The thing I like best is how country_data has all the info, reducing scattering of data (and only that one template has to be retrieved to get all that info). (SEWilco 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Ah. Ok. Well, for the templates that editors on articles use, there is no change at all in usage besides adding a "2" to the current name of the template calls (country → country2, flagicon → flagicon2). So the usage documentation of the current systems applies to the new one as well. What's changed is the data template(s). But you're right. Documenting is always a good thing. Thing is, I haven't completely understood all uses of the existing system, I've just refactored it... :-). --Ligulem 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
...still thinking about the recursion thing. I don't think there is, besides for template page display on Template:Country data France, carefully packaged inside <noinclude>'s
{{ {{{1<noinclude>|country showdata</noinclude>}}} ...
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And if someone forgets the <noinclude>'s, the parser won't get mad (I trust Tim :-). --Ligulem 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Recursion isn't quite the right word. Template invocation through that variable substitution which you used is something that I'm pretty sure I tried. Well, it works now. If it breaks it will be noticed. (SEWilco 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
I've implemented flagISO: {{country2|flagISO|FRA}} = {{country2|flagISO|FRA}}. For this, I had to add "ISO alias = France" and "flag ISO alias = Flag of France.svg" to Country data France, which seems a bit redundant (also ditched the "suffix" param for template:Country showdata and introduced "countryname"). Hmmm, is this country2|flagISO needed/used? Anyway, added it for compatibility with the current system. It might be a good occasion now to review this. --Ligulem 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a three letter abbreviation might mean something different, such as in ISO and IOC. Choose the template naming to prevent conflicts, probably with "ISO" or "IOC" inside a template name pattern. (SEWilco 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Ok. I just replicated that part ({{country|flagISO|...}}) of the current flag templates. It's in the new system now. Looking at Template:Country data France
{{ {{{1<noinclude>|country showdata</noinclude>}}}
| alias           = France
| shortname alias = France
| label alias     = FRA
| flag alias      = Flag of France.svg
| ISO alias       = France
| flag ISO alias  = Flag of France.svg
| countryname = {{{countryname|France<!-- MUST MATCH SUFFIX OF PAGENAME!! -->}}}
| size        = {{{size|}}}
| name        = {{{name|}}}
}}
for example "flag ISO alias" and "flag alias" have the same value in this specific data set. I'm asking myself if the call {{country2|flagISO|...}} (formatter template) couldn't co-use "flag alias". Also the description at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Implementation says:
"country_ISO_alias_ has name of Wikipedia article, referenced only by ISO 3166-1/USA FIPS 104-1 country codes."
and
"country_alias_ has the name of the Wikipedia article for the country."
Also, are there different flags for the country|flagISO needed/used? I don't mind that much, I was just asking this myself while doing the flagISO clause of template:country2.... --Ligulem 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you need country_ISO_data_FRA because "FRA" may mean something different in ISO, IOC, and whatever other country codes for which support is needed. Otherwise you need "ISO" versions of all the variables, and expect data for several countries within a single country_data_* template. Notice that if "FRA" has the same meaning in ISO and IOC, country_ISO_data_FRA and country_IOC_data_FRA both could redirect to country_data_France. And if the ISO and IOC country identification is done through the _data_ addressing, are "ISO" variables needed? (SEWilco 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Did {{country2|flagIOC|..}}, too (formatter, data). What's left? --Ligulem 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I dropped the support for IOC per reasoning below at #Olympic flag usage (flagIOC etc.) --Ligulem 11:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See a nice way to handle variants, such as historical flags (USA-48 with 48 stars)? There are some obvious ways to handle U.S. states. (SEWilco 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
I will have a look. --Ligulem 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
On another note, you might have seen this, but it wasn't evident in the examples shown at {{Country data France}}, but most of the instances I have come across of flag usage do not use the {{country|action|..}} forms, but usually call {{flagicon}} or {{flagcountry}} directly. I see that you have a test template at {{Flagicon2}}, but the Flagcountry equivalent is missing. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think country_data_* will not be called directly, so there will indeed be a flagcountry for normal use. (SEWilco 07:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)_
I've created Template:Flagcountry2(edit talk links history) (See also [7]) --Ligulem 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Olympic flag usage (flagIOC etc.)

SEWilco dropped a note onto Template talk:FlagIOC that this discussion was taking place, and I'm glad he did!! I need to update you all on what I have done over the past few months. Basically, I have already decoupled {{FlagIOC}} from the {{country}} mechanism and "unrolled" the template. I still call the various country_IOC_alias_xxx and country_flag_IOC_alias_xxx templates directly, but not through another level of template transclusion. The biggest change is that flagIOC now takes an additional parameter (the specific Olympic Games year) to selectively choose the correct flag for the given Games, and to render the correct wikilink.

Some examples:

To achieve this, I changed the way each of the country_flag_IOC_alias_xxx templates work for nations that have had different historical flags. For example, {{country_flag_IOC_alias_GER}} now looks like: 

{{ #switch: {{{1}}}
| 1896 Summer
| 1900 Summer
| 1904 Summer
| 1906 Summer
| 1908 Summer
| 1912 Summer = Flag of the German Empire.svg
| 1936 Winter
| 1936 Summer = Flag of Germany 1933.svg
| #default = Flag of Germany.svg
}}

Off the top of my head, I'd guess that perhaps a third of the nations for which we have IOC templates (~70-80 out of ~230) now use a conditional to select the flag.

The other thing I did was add some additional templates to help editors working on Olympic-related pages. A couple of common styles were being used on those pages, such as putting a flag icon before an athlete's name and putting a wikilink to the nation after his/her name. The templates I added are intended to greatly simplify that. Specifically:

I guess the point of my message here is that a LOT of work has gone into cleaning up the Olympic-specific flag usage, and I am happy with the current state of things. There are about ~230 flag templates and another ~230 nation alias templates that are keyed to the IOC country code, and I think it is somewhat stable now. I don't see any compelling reason to try to re-work the flagIOC mechanism any further. If it is deemed necessary to remove all the IOC_alias_xxx templates in favor of something else, it is imperative that backward compatibility be maintained for the thousands of instances in which the "new" flagIOC templates are used.

Andrwsc 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this report. If I understand this correctly, {{country|flagIOC|..}} is no longer called from any article (If we should happen to find such a call, it can be changed to {{flagIOC|...}}). In light of this, I'll drop support for {{country2|flagIOC|..}} in User:Ligulem/work/flag templates rework. The introduction of a year parameter and a switch in a data template like this one makes it incompatible with my proposal (I was not aware of this complication). So the IOC flag templates and the data templates they use in the array(s) must stay as they are (In fact, they are no longer array elements, due to the year parameter). I just hope that the flagIOC templates don't use and won't start using non-IOC related data templates, for example, the flagIOC-templates ideally shouldn't use the Country flag alias data templates. --Ligulem 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that Template:Country flagIOC is orphanned. So this fits very well with what Andrwsc wrote (not that I would expect anything else :-). So, I'm going to add a bold deprecation notice on Template:Country flagIOC. --Ligulem 10:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you are correct, {{country|flagIOC|..}} has not been used for a long time. If you look at that template, the wikilink to "... at the 2004 Summer Olympics" was hardcoded into it. That's what got me started down the path to the evolution of {{flagIOC}}. I wanted something scalable to all 45 past Games and future ones, and parameterizing the link seemed obvious. It was later that I figured out how the same parameter could be used to select the correct historical flag.
As far as your country data templates go, I don't see anything there that we don't already have for the Olympic templates. As SEWilco noted, the IOC country code is not always the same as the ISO code (e.g. ALG vs. DZA for Algeria). More significantly, the IOC codes include several non-country entities (for example, we use {{flagIOC|IOP|1992 Summer}} to render   Independent Olympic Participants, and {{flagIOC|EUA|1964 Summer}} to render   United Team of Germany, etc.) and I don't think you want to try to force a merge of that into your country data system. I am content if the Olympic stuff remains de-coupled from that. I just don't want to see templates like {{country_flag_IOC_alias_USA}} get deleted in some future cleanup effort!! I would be happy to rename them if you want to get rid of the "country_" prefix, for example, but let me know so that we can keep all the Olympic stuff unbroken. Andrwsc 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in use will be deleted. That would be vandalism and would quickly cost me my admin license! As you can see on this talk page, we are thinking about some improvements of the current system, like reducing the number of templates. Maintaining a large number of templates has a cost (vandalism, etc.). As I already noted, I've dropped the IOC templates from my change proposal at User:Ligulem/work/flag templates rework [8], so you are not affected by my proposal. --Ligulem 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Handling variants, such as historical flags

Existing calls:

  • {{country|flagcountry|Brazil}} = {{country|flagcountry|Brazil}}
  • {{country|flagcountry|Brazil-1889}} = {{country|flagcountry|Brazil-1889}}

Using User:Ligulem/work/flag templates rework:

  • {{country2|flagcountry|Brazil}} = {{country2|flagcountry|Brazil}}
  • {{country2|flagcountry|Brazil|1889}} = {{country2|flagcountry|Brazil|1889}}

See

Modifications done for this:

I admit this is getting very hairy. Thoughts? --Ligulem 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

{{country2|flagcountry|BRA|1889}} = {{country2|flagcountry|BRA|1889}} – --Ligulem 13:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is simply not worth the potential problems with regards to increased complexity. Compare also with {{flagcountry2|Brazil-imperial}} = {{flagcountry2|Brazil-imperial}}, which simply uses Template:Country data Brazil-imperial(edit talk links history). --Ligulem 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My 2 bits - I think the right approach is to work all the historical flags into the same country data structure, but use different structures only for historical nations (e.g. don't put East Germany data into the Germany country data). This seems most logical to me, and also less likely to result in a proliferation of country data variants. Of course, that means more work up front to design a clean solution, but I have confidence in you.  ;) Andrwsc 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ligulem did just what I thought of when I read Andrwsc's comment. Simply put more flag_alias entries in the country_data_* template. By appending variant after a hyphen, several flag_alias entries can be identified, such as flag alias-1889 pointing to a different flag image. Even better, {{Country flagcountry2}}, which displays the image, has access to all the country_data info and is able to select which flag to show (and has flexibility in changing the display format). Looks nice. (SEWilco 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC))
The example of "Brazil-imperial" points out that in addition to a separate flag there may be a need for a separate article and a different country label. These would only be needed in templates which show a country label (an icon alone can only be linked to the image). (SEWilco 02:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Usage example: European Union

As a first example for real usage, I've copied European Union to User:Ligulem/work/European Union and converted the calls there [9] (I also created the needed data templates for that article with the help of this). Compare the list of used templates in European Union with the list in User:Ligulem/work/European Union. --Ligulem 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country flag alias Caribbean

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Template:Country flag alias Caribbean. Is this the correct flag image? --Ligulem 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an ISO "CRB" abbreviation, but what entity does it refer to and what is its flag? There are only a few linked items in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Country_flag_alias_Caribbean (SEWilco 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Help! Nazi Germany

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working on the Fieseler Fi 156 page, and need something along the lines of Template:GER except with the German WW2 (Nazi) flag to be historically accurate. Is there a template for that? Also, is there a place where I can find a list of all of the flag icons that can be called using the [[Template:(countrycode)]] format? This list helped loads but only shows current nations, and the category for flag templates is woefully incomplete (Template:PNG was not included, for instance). Thanks! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try {{flag|Nazi Germany}} (SEWilco 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
Yes! Thank you! :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh noez - substed flag alias templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I looked at the what links here of Template:Country flag alias United States (to see where that is still used now) and opened Biathlon. Then I found that Country flag alias XXX are used directly there: Introduction of the flags, substing (!). Is/was this general accepted practice? Would we have to face some opposition if we would try to mass-"unsubst" such things with {{flagicon}} et al? Puzzled, --Ligulem 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is a widespread practice, but it does happen, as you've seen. I think I replaced this once or twice on some other pages a couple of months ago without complaint. (In that case, it was inappropriate use of the country_flag_IOC_alias variants which I replaced with flagicon, on a page about world war II films, if I remember...) These should be easy to spot after you've upgraded the main templates, as they would be the few remaining direct links to the old country_flag_alias_xxx templates. Andrwsc 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that many of those remaining links to are due to {{flagof}}, which ought to be replaced. I will do something in the meantime. Andrwsc 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, there are several places where Template:Country_flagicon is called directly. That should be updated as well. Andrwsc 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes. Subst "zombies" (I mean the result of the subst, not the Wikipedian – just to be clear ;-) like this one. I already did some mass removals of flags in signatures (duh! [10]). I'm going to zap these as well per WP:SIG. --Ligulem 09:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I had dropped a note on that user's talk page yesterday about the strange sig (uses a conditional that always tests true?) and he has replied that he no longer uses that flag, but in the meantime, there are dozens of talk pages that use the old sig...
I also found some other templates yesterday that used to call country_alias_xxx templates directly. I have fixed Template:flagof and Template:Infobox Bilateral relations to use the standard calls, so that should cut down a large number of "zombies" too. Andrwsc 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the records: There are now zero pages in main namespace transcluding Template:Country flag alias United States [11]. --Ligulem 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation error

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thought y'all might want to know that a whole load of extranious pages have been categorised under Category:Flag templates. True, there were a number of country templates that needed to be added, but somebody went overboard... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I did a Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Flag_templates and looked for changed templates. Quickly spotted template:SYR: [12]. User:Akradecki simply forgot to wrap the cat into noincludes :-) (this sort of error happens easily, I have done this error myself too occasionally :-). So, just an error, not vandalism (I toned down the section title from "Categorisation vandalism" to "Categorisation error"). And fixed it. --Ligulem 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The job queue is currently floating around 20'000 entries, so it will take some time until the articles are updated. So don't be surprised if the cat is still overpopulated at the moment :-). On Mondays it might take half an hour or so until the servers have caught up... --Ligulem 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I have been helping out the transition effort to the new "country data" based template calls, and have some observations based on what I have seen.

First, both the original implementation and the new one were based on a single template ({{country}}) that had a variety of "action" or "formatter" arguments, which in turn caused the invocation of a "second layer" of template calls. My observation is that virtually nobody uses the {{country|action|...}} style of template calls. If they are still needed for internal operation, that's fine, but we should document it as internal use only. We should not promote the use of {{country}} as something editors should use in wiki markup in normal usage.

Furthermore, some of these "actions" are also virtually unused, namely flagISO and name. I see one usage of {{country|name|...}} in Template:Infobox Bilateral relations, but that's about it.

Next, I see that the vast majority of articles require one of two things:

  • a flag icon, followed by a country name or code that is wikilinked to the article for that country
  • just the flag icon by itself

Obviously, {{flagicon}} is the preferred way to render the latter. Right now, there is a wide variety of names used as the country parameter to that template (e.g. sometimes the name of the nation is used, and sometimes a country code is used), but the end result is the same. Therefore, {{flagicon|USA}} and {{flagicon|United States}} render exactly the same thing, and I think that is a good thing.

For the former, I see three techniques used:

  1. {{flagcountry}}
  2. {{flag}}
  3. shortcut template names (such as {{USA}}) that typically render the same thing as a call to {{flagcountry}} (see full? list at Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles)

The problem I see is that {{flagcountry}} and {{flag}} do more or less the same thing, but with a different name for the wikilinked country string. One thing they do is "translate" the country argument so that you get a full name out of {{flagcountry}} and a ISO code out of {{flag}}. For example:

In my mind, this is not intuitive. I think it is a good thing that the input argument to these templates can be either a name or a code, but I don't think it is useful for the output string to be modified.

What is especially vexing is that we accept non-ISO country codes as input arguments, but always use the ISO code for the output of {{flag}}. This results in some strange wikicode. If I want to render   GER (e.g. for sports articles where "GER" is the country code for Germany), there is no easy way to do it. {{flag|GER}} gives me   GER. One solution is to write {{flag|GER|name=GER}}, but that is obtuse to say the least!

It seems to me that we don't really need both {{flagcountry}} and {{flag}}. We need to make it easy for editors to put a flag in front of their desired string. What seems most intuitive to me would be for this behaviour:

I think this is technically easy to do. The modified flag template would set the name= argument to the first parameter, or something like that. I haven't mocked it up yet.

What would be more time consuming is going through the instances where flag or flagcountry is used and see if they are depending upon the "translation" capability or not.

One thing I would not touch is the set of "shortcut templates" (like {{USA}}), as editors clearly know what to expect from that.

Comments? Andrwsc 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet a complete response, but I was also puzzled why people would use {{country|flagcountry|...}} instead of the simpler {{flagcountry}} (did some of these: [13]). In fact, template:country makes tracking the different sorts of calls more difficult, as it is easy to do a "what links here" of {{flagcountry}} whereas {{country|flagcountry|...}} cannot be enumerated without visiting every call (or scanning a database dump). Note that template:flagcountry no longer calls template:country ([14]). As a side note, I would like to point out that the change I did with the data templates is just an internal refactoring, so the "new" system provides the same functionality as SEWilco's original implementation. Just with less templates. I have now unprotected all of the original array templates, which are nearly completely orphanned. (Going to bed now). --Ligulem 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess a quick summary of my comments is that I realize that your work mostly provides a more efficient implementation of SEWilco's original work (using wiki features not available to him at the time), but perhaps we should re-examine the full scope of that implementation, now that we have a year or two of usage to look at. Exactly what problems do we need solutions for? Can we remove unused features and fix ones that are "broken" in the eyes of some editors?
Have a good sleep.  ;) Andrwsc 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I researched current use counts (Warning: table below is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template/Table 2007-02-01):
Template # pages
calling		 Used when calling..
Template:flagicon 41,659 Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:flagcountry 13,523 Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country 106 Updated 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:flag 1,037 Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:ISO 7 Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country flagicon2 41,635 {{country|flagicon|..}}, {{flagicon|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country flagcountry2 13,561 {{country|flagcountry|..}}, {{flagcountry|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country flag2 1,046 {{country|flag|..}}, {{flag|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country name2 66 {{country|name|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country flagISO2 7 {{country|flagISO|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country get alias2 6 {{country|get alias|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Country get flag alias2 6 {{country|get flag alias|..}} Updated 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that {{Country flagISO2}} is almost only called on the template:Country data XXX pages (ditto for {{Country name2}}). Category:Country data templates has 777 entries. --Ligulem 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting, and encouraging! I think that "flag" is far too valuable a template name to be used for just it's current purpose (flagicon + wikilinked ISO code), but since it is used in only 1000-2000 pages, it might be possible to redefine it in a backward compatible way as I've described above. For example, all instances of {{flag|Country Name}} would be replaced by {{flag|ISO}} first. This would have no effect on the rendered pages. Then we can extend the functionality of {{flag|...}} without causing any changes to those 1000-2000 pages. Finally, the new functionality can be published and used (instead of flagcountry, for example) as editors see fit. Andrwsc 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Another note - my proposed functionality is absolutely trivial to implement. Take a look at User:Andrwsc/Flagtest (and test calls on the talk page), which is basically a direct copy of {{flagcountry}} but with one very small difference - the name parameter defaults to the first template argument instead of blank. Andrwsc 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral observation: If we would replace the code of {{flag}} with [15], this would mean that the "label alias" values of the country data templates would no longer be used for {{flag}} calls (see [16]), because {{{name}}} is then either set by the caller or defaulted to what is provided as parameter 1 of {{flag}}. --Ligulem 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ISO alias, flag ISO alias

Because it's untranscluded in articles I've redirected Template:Country flagISO2 (has a total of 5 transclusions) to Template:Country flagcountry2 and removed the ISO options from Template:Country/doc ([17]). Would anybody yell at me if I would mass remove the now unused "ISO alias" and "flag ISO alias" parameters from the country data templates? --Ligulem 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't yell! I just don't think we need a template that translates a long name to a country code. I think we only need for the flagxxx templates to accept country codes as input arguments, and that is accomplished by creating redirects such as from {{Country_data_DEU}} to {{Country_data_Germany}}, to name one example. Obviously, the flagISO methods originally conceived have not been used by editors since then, so I think it is safe to remove them during this re-implementation effort. Andrwsc 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

countryname instead of label alias

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

How about just doing this to {{Country flag2}}? {{{countryname}}} is parameter {{{1}}} feeded through from {{flag}}. All country data templates feed {{{countryname}}} into {{Country flag2}} when called from {{flag}} (this is true for all entry points). --Ligulem 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would work the same way. If we are using redirects for the country code inputs (e.g. {{Country data GER}} → {{Country data Germany}}), then this parameter would be "Germany" in all cases instead of "GER" or "DEU" if desired. Andrwsc 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. In the call {{flag|Germany}}, {{{countryname}}} has value "Germany". In the call {{flag|GER}}, {{{countryname}}} has value "GER". I will elaborate that below in a moment. --Ligulem 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) {{flag|GER}}
(2) expands to: {{country data GER | country flag2 | countryname = GER }}
(3) expands to (redirect): {{country data Germany | country flag2 | countryname = GER }}
(4) expands to: {{country flag2 | alias = Germany | shortname alias = Germany | label alias = DEU | flag alias = Flag of Germany.svg | countryname = GER}} (I already left away the ISO params here)
(5) would expand to: [[Image: Flag of Germany.svg|22x20px|Flag of Germany]] [[Germany|GER]] (if we presume we set {{Country flag2}} to use this template code)
--Ligulem 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, thanks! The trick is that "countryname" is set before the redirect, not after (as I had thought). Andrwsc 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
And as for the proposed change, I think we need two things: 1) more discussion, especially SEWilco's input, since this is a fairly major redefinition of a high-use template, and 2) replacement of all existing calls to {{flag}} to change the input argument to the code string if it already isn't, thus ensuring backward compatibility. For that, I'll need your help to edit the protected template. The "temporary category" trick is what I have in mind to get a list of articles use flag with a full-name argument:
{{ #ifeq: {{{label alias}}} | {{{countryname}}} | <!-- ok --> | [[Category:Articles that use Flag without country codes]] }}
Andrwsc 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. Wouldn't that have been needed with your proposal (User:Andrwsc/Flagtest) as well, or is there some additional complexity with my counter-proposal? Puzzled. On another note, I've seen enough flag templates for today (We must be really mad doing all this ;-). See ya. --Ligulem 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...and I don't know where to put your template code snippet. (Now I'm really gone for today). --Ligulem 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Got it [18]. And created Category:Articles that use Flag without country codes. --Ligulem 08:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I saved the content of the cat at User:Ligulem/work/Articles that use Flag without country codes. --Ligulem 09:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...and reverted the temporary change on the template [19]. --Ligulem 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...and deleted the cat after it was orphanned. --Ligulem 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed all country data templates from the list [20]. --Ligulem 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away for a few hours, but it looks like you figured out what I was trying to say! I had noticed that of the ~1100 pages on the "What links here" list of {{flag}}, a large number were because of the link from country_showdata, but also that a large number were pages that had a small handful of {{flag|USA}}, {{flag|EU}}, etc. For example, pages on books or video games use these templates for release dates, etc. What I really wanted to know was how many pages actually relied upon the "translation" ability of that template, and had a large number of {{flag|Germany}}, {{flag|France}}, etc. instead of being written with the country codes as input arguments. I am somewhat astonished – in a good way! – that there are only 94 pages on your list, and a small subset of that in the main article space!! I think that reinforces my proposal, that this change would not negatively impact very many articles at all. Thanks for your help - I think I'll work on the articles on that list to potentially prepare for the transition. Andrwsc 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I made Template:FlagA (edit talk links history) (for "flag Andrwsc" :-):
  • {{flagA|Germany}} =   Germany – For testing only!!!
  • {{flagA|DEU}} =   DEU – For testing only!!!
  • {{flagA|GER}} =   GER – For testing only!!!
  • {{flagA|GER|name=voodoo}} =   voodoo – For testing only!!!
  • {{flagA|GER|size=30px}} =   GER – For testing only!!!
as a mock-up. It uses Template:Country flagA2 (edit talk links history). --Ligulem 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the status quo with this? --Ligulem 09:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:flag and the link to the Wikipedia article

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

Andrwsc wrote: What seems most intuitive to me would be for this behaviour:

What should be done with current calls
? --Ligulem 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
?? --Ligulem 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I like the subsection heading.  ;) Here's my opinion on each of those first six examples:
  • {{Country data Bulgaria 1946}} should be deleted and the flag put as a "1946" variant inside the main {{Country data Bulgaria}} template. Then, to render that variant, you would call {{flagcountry|Bulgaria|1946}}
  • works fine as is
  • I would make the main data structure for each of the 50 states aligned with the main article name, so it would be {{Country data Florida}} in this case. There would be at least two redirects, one from {{Country data FL}} and another from the existing {{Country data USA-FL}} for backward compatibility. Then, you could just use {{flag|FL}} to get the state code or {{flag|Florida}} to get the full name. flagcountry with any of those three parameters would render "Florida".
  • works fine as is
  • I would do two things. Since Weimar Republic is a main article, we ought to use {{Country data Weimar Republic}}. There should be a variant in the {{Country data Germany}} template if the editor wants to make the wikilink to Germany. (In fact, I did that yesterday in my first attempts with the variant code.) That gives the editor a few options: {{flag|Weimar Republic}}, {{flag|Weimar Republic|name=Germany}}, {{flag|Germany|Weimar}}, etc. It all depends on what you want the wikilink to point to and what you want the name to say.
  • works fine as is
I'm not exactly sure what answers you were unsure of, but hopefully my opinions here are logical. I think you can see what I am driving at. Andrwsc 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What should be done with:
Isn't that a name clash on {{country data Georgia}} with your new system? Please state the calls you would like to use for these two in your new system. --Ligulem 10:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Andrwsc wrote: "There should be a variant in the {{Country data Germany}} template if the editor wants to make the wikilink to Germany". I do not understand that completely. We currently have {{{variant}}} used for the "flag alias" parameter of the data templates but not for "alias" ([21], [22]). Do you mean that the variant system should be extended onto the "alias" parameter? This sounds like getting very nasty. If we need variants for every field in the data templates, we start mimicking data template forks inside data templates. Plus I fear your "most intuitive" system produces name clashes on the data templates. It looks neat on the "GER", "DEU", "Germany" example, but I fear it causes problems when we try to implement that completely. Names of the data templates (or redirects to them) are then predetermined by what the link text should read. This smells a bit like a non-orthogonality to me. --Ligulem 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all!! Let me try to explain my ideas again.
Within the country_data templates, alias is fixed to a single value, the name of the main Wikipedia article. It cannot be changed. If you want a new link, you need a new country_data structure. Conversely, that also means that we shouldn't have country_data structures for non-existant articles. They should be redirects to the "real" one. Using Florida as an example of this concept, Country_data_Florida is correct as is. County_data_FL and Country_data_USA-FL only exist so that "FL" and "USA-FL" can be used as alternatives to "Florida" in the calls to the flag, flagcountry, and flagicon templates.
Next, 'shortname alias' is also fixed to a single value within the template, but can be overridden in one of two ways. For flagcountry, the name= argument would be used. For the proposed flag (flagA now ;), the first argument used with the template call would be used.
Next, the 'flag alias' is the one parameter within Country_data structures that will have multiple variants. I think this is WAY more logical to handle situations like the 1946-1967 flag of Bulgaria. There is no reason to create a new Country_data structure, espectially since the alias and shortname_alias fields would be the same. For editors wanting to use that flag, it is an extremely minor change from a space to a pipe character! (e.g {{flagcountry|Bulgaria|1946}} instead of {{flagcountry|Bulgaria 1946}}
As for any confusion I created with my response on Weimar Republic, let me elaborate. Since there are articles for both Germany and Weimar Republic, I think that means we ought to have Country_data templates for both. In different instances, editors may want to link to either one. {{flagcountry|Germany|Weimar}} renders   Germany and {{flagcountry|Weimar Republic}} renders   Weimar Republic Of course, you could also use {{flagcountry|Weimar Republic|name=Germany}} to render   Germany
Finally, with respect to the name conflict on Georgia, we maintain the existing status quo. I think Template:Country data Georgia already does the right thing. The main template for the US state would need to be Template:Country data Georgia (U.S. state), with redirects from the two shorthand labels, Country_data_GA and Country_data_USA-GA. This means that you can do these:
To be honest, I don't think I've seen any instance of flagcountry with any of the US states - they tend to use the current flag to get the two letter code instead - so I think these ideas don't impact any current pages.
I hope this makes sense! I don't think I'm proposing anything radical here, just a cleanup and merge from many of the redudant Country_data structures into the main ones for each country, using flag variants and redirects as appropriate. Andrwsc 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel quite confident that you know what needs to be done :-). I probably just do have some problems following you. I agree with doing "flag alias XXX" for cases like the 1946-1967 flag of Bulgaria and I agree that it makes sense to name the Country data templates after the main article (So having template:Country data Florida, template:Country data Georgia (U.S. state) and template:Country data Weimar Republic). What still confuses me is your sentence "There should be a variant in the {{Country data Germany}} template if the editor wants to make the wikilink to Germany". I interpret this as doing a country data template like this:
...
flag alias = wee bee.svg
flag alias-variant1 = blurp blomp.svg
flag alias-variant2 = foo bar.svg
label alias = bla
label alias-variant1 = bla bla
label alias-variant2 = ping pong
...
which I think would be A Bad Thing™ (but I now have some doubts you really meant that). --Ligulem 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I definitely don't mean that! I guess that sentence was a bit unclear. What I meant was that I think there are instances where editors will want to use the Weimar Republic flag, but still use Germany as the wikilinked country. That means we need a variant inside the Country_data_Germany structure to show that flag, but retain "Germany" as the alias and shortname alias. We're giving editors more options, in a logical, scalable way, by providing both {{flagcountry|Germany|Weimar}} and {{flagcountry|Weimar Republic}}. Andrwsc 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I think I got it now. Everything in harmony then ;-). --Ligulem 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
All calls {{flagcountry|USA-FL}} =   Florida in articles would need to be changed to {{flag|Florida}} = {{flagA|Florida}} prior to exchanging the code of template:flagcountry with template:flagA (or User:Andrwsc/Flagtest), because {{flagA|USA-FL}} = {{flagA|USA-FL}} would break current expectations, right? (I believe there is no article using template:country data USA-FL on User:Ligulem/work/Articles that use Flag without country codes) --Ligulem 11:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. The templates for the 50 US states, and 10 Canadian provinces (e.g. CAN-BC) are the only ones that don't have existing Country_data templates under the "right" name, I think. Fortunately, there are less than 10 pages that use them with the flag template, I think. Most of the time, flagicon is used, so the label doesn't matter. Andrwsc 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at my log ;-) --Ligulem 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the section title from "Andrwsc's most intuitive behaviour" to "Template:flag and the link to the Wikipedia article" --Ligulem 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the status quo with this? --Ligulem 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say that we are almost finished with getting all the redirects sorted out and getting all the flag variants merged. I will look at the remaining pages that rely on the "translation ability" of the existing {{flag}} before we make the next step. Andrwsc 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done:

  • {{flag|Germany}} =   Germany
  • {{flag|DEU}} =   DEU
  • {{flag|GER}} =   GER

--Ligulem 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of the project page

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've done a major rewrite of the project page to adapt for the new template system used (the country data templates). --Ligulem 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bordered icons

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A few months ago, people starting using alternate flag images for flag icons, specifically, modifications to the "main" flag image to put a black border around it. The improvement is noticable at 22x20px (e.g. compare Japan at   vs.  ). This method seems to have caught on instead of using the {{border}} template for a couple of reasons (my speculation): it is simpler to add the bordered version to the flag template, thereby instantly updating all occurances, and it results in less complexity in the eventual page rendering.

One problem is that the bordered versions do not look very good when shown at a larger size. The {{border}} template produces much better results. This means that editors are forced to use the image directly instead of using any of the flag templates (e.g. compare {{flagicon|Japan|size=150px}} vs. {{border|[[Image:Flag of Japan.svg|150px]]}})
  vs.  

What I would like to propose is that we add "icon alias" entries to the country_data templates for nations that need a "(bordered)" version for icon usage. The flag templates would select either "flag alias" or "icon alias" based on the presence of the "size" parameter or not. For example, the code for {{country flagicon2}} would now look like: 

[[Image:{{
  #if: {{{variant|}}} | {{{flag alias-{{{variant}}}}}} | {{#if: {{{size|}}} | {{{flag alias}}} | {{{icon alias|{{{flag alias}}}}}} }}
}}|{{
  #if: {{{size|}}} | {{{size}}} | 22x20px
}}|Flag of {{{alias}}}]]

(This is off the top of my head and not sandboxed, but you get the idea.)

One other benefit I can see by having both bordered and non-bordered versions of the flag within the country_data structures is that it might stop or reduce edit/revert cycles over which one is "best". Editors have two methods by which to get the flag they want. Normal usage of flagicon or flagcountry would give the icon version (if available); editors can override and get the non-bordered version by specifying any size (even 22x20px).

I think using the size parameter as the "key" for selection makes most sense because it is the size of the flag that determines whether or not the "(bordered)" versions look good or not. Andrwsc 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know how to proceed with #countryname instead of label alias and #Template:flag and the link to the Wikipedia article before adding additional parameters to the country data templates. --Ligulem 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. My wife also tells me to finish some projects before starting new ones...  ;) Andrwsc 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I say use {{border}} and simply do this on a flag-by-flag basis consistently (starting with {{Flag|JPN}} and its variants!), for flags with white that will hit the edge of the picture. I.e., fix all the templates, rather that resort to using alt. images that look terrible at full size. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alt text "Flag of Country"

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The default hover box over flag icons is to use "Flag of {{{alias}}}", which is a great idea. One minor problem is that it produces incorrect grammar for some nation names. For example, it should really read "Flag of the United States" instead of "Flag of United States". The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Bahamas, and a few other countries also share this issue.

One extremely simple and effective fix would be to add something like "alias prefix = the" to the country_data structure for those handful of nations, and then change code to render the caption to: 

|Flag of {{alias prefix|}}} {{{alias}}}]]

On a related note, I'd like to add a "See also" notice to {{country showdata}} to link to the appropriate "[[Flag of {{alias prefix|}}} {{{alias}}}]]" article, as I think it would be a very useful reference for historic flag maintenance, and this would also be a good way to find all the nations that need the "the" prefix. Andrwsc 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: this is not only a "hover label" or "..box". It is also called alt text. Important for blind readers or users who have turned off pictures in their browser. (Quote from alt attribute: "It is not intended to provide "pop up" text or tooltips when a user's mouse hovers over the image, though alt text has historically been presented in this way in some web browsers."). I changed the section title accordingly (was: "Hover label: "Flag of Country""). --Ligulem 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know how to proceed with #countryname instead of label alias and #Template:flag and the link to the Wikipedia article before adding additional parameters to the country data templates. --Ligulem 09:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
After having thought a bit about this proposal, I agree doing this, but how about specifying the alt text completely? So, I'm thinking about changing for example Template:Country flagicon2 from:
[[Image:{{
  #if: {{{variant|}}} | {{{flag alias-{{{variant}}}}}} | {{{flag alias}}}
}}|{{
  #if: {{{size|}}} | {{{size}}} | 22x20px
}}|Flag of {{{alias}}}]]
to
[[Image:{{
  #if: {{{variant|}}} | {{{flag alias-{{{variant}}}}}} | {{{flag alias}}}
}}|{{
  #if: {{{size|}}} | {{{size}}} | 22x20px
}}|{{
  #if: {{{alt alias|}}} | {{{alt alias}}} | Flag of {{{alias}}}
}}]]
and adding "alt alias = Flag of the United States" to template:country data United States --Ligulem 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That would work, but might be more than necessary. I think that all instances of "alt alias" would merely have the addition of the word "the" in the name. I think there are no other textual variations. If that's indeed the case, I think we could avoid that extra conditional and use the "alias prefix = the" suggestion I had above. We would not have to put "alias prefix" into any template except the handful that need it.
In order to try this out, I think the first step might be to put this into Template:country showdata:
{{See also|Flag of {{{alias}}}}}
(not tested, but you get the idea). I'd like to see something like this in country_showdata permanently, since I found that I was often looking at those series of articles when I was adding flag variants to the country_data templates. It would be a useful addition to the user documentation to provide some descriptive context about when to use flag variants. In addition to the permanent benefit, this would also help us now identify which templates need "alt alias" or "alias prefix" since the "Flag of alias" article would either be redlinked or point to a redirect (as almost all of the ones missing "the" already do). Andrwsc 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"That would work, but might be more than necessary": My programmer stomach tells me that your proposal is needlessly rigid and non-orthogonal. You give up a flexibility for no good reason. Who knows what text we will need in the future? I don't think that the length of the value that has to be entered for an additional parameter matters in any way. The question is do we have to enter that param or not? And it has to be entered only where the default is incorrect. As for the known cases of the United States or the Bahamas. Just a wild remote idea for such an alt text would be "Seal of xxx". Currently not remotely in sight, but who knows... --Ligulem 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. My programmer stomach tells me to look for simplicity and elegance.  ;) Maybe that's because I used to do a lot of embedded systems work, so I place a premium on compactness. Anyway, I'm not hung up about it, and your reasons are probably more future-proof than mine, so if you want to run with that, I support it. My only requests are that we keep it an optional parameter for country_data templates so that it doesn't appear where it needs to, and we use it to add the "Flag of ..." link to the showdata template to help documentation. Thanks, Andrwsc 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh. Now you tell me my solution is not elegant and not simple. Damn :-). Two bored template fiddlers, I'd say. Seriously: I don't mind either. As I'm not really a user of the flag templates, I would say do it as you see fit. Chances are good you can edit the relevant templates yourself in a few days :-). --Ligulem 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh! Thanks. I'll add the link to showdata first, and I want to take a final(?) pass through the country_data list before mucking with the implementation, I think. Andrwsc 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

National team templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think by far the most common usage of flag icons is for sports result pages. It seemed as though they were mostly what I have been editing recently to update flag template calls. One observation is that several team sports each have their own very large set of flag templates that effectively reproduce what we have implemented here. For example, check out Category:National football team templates, which has approximately 850 templates alone! Other sports, such as ice hockey, rugby union and cricket all have similar template sets, but they are not as well-documented as the football ones.

Some problems with this system are that the calling convention for historic flags is different between sports, and different from the variant labels we have started to use. Furthermore, they are not always accurate or complete. For example, not all of the US flag variants exist, so some editors had to resort to using the image directly. Another example - Canada is shown as only having one historic flag (see {{CANfold}}) when there were actually three different red ensigns.

What I'd like to propose, and this will have to be done with approval of each sport's WikiProject, is to consolidate upon the country_data templates and replace the sport-specific templates. It was trivially easy to create a single template that I would estimate can be used for 90% of those football specific ones. I created {{national sports team}} as the main template to render the flag and link, and then {{fb}} for a football specific one.

For example:

Old → New
{{ITAf}} {{ITAf}} → {{fb|ITA}}   Italy
{{ITAfold}} {{ITAfold}} → {{fb|ITA|old}}   Italy

This is an extremely scalable system. We only need per-sport templates (like {{fb}}) for football, but for ice hockey, basketball, rugby union, etc. as per Category:National sports teams to replace over a thousand specific instances. There are a few special cases where the team flag is different or the team name is different (e.g. instead of New Zealand national rugby union team, the preferred name is at All Blacks), but the beauty of the country_data system is that special cases can be handled there (for example, use an override parameter like "rugby union national team = All Blacks" inside country_data_New_Zealand). Some tweaking to {{national sports team}} is needed to pick up those names, as is handling of nations that have both men's and women's team articles, but neither is a big deal.

In any case, I'd like to get some discussion and consensus here before bringing this to the respective sports wikiprojects. Andrwsc 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat frightened by the idea of adding "rugby union national team = All Blacks" inside country_data_New_Zealand. But I could be wrong. --Ligulem 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was one thought I had too. It makes the country_data system less elegant in some ways, but perhaps more powerful in other ways. I just hate to see hundreds to thousands of redundant templates... Andrwsc 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Use simplified flag icons

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

  vs.  
The squashed images of complex flags when shrunk can obscure the entire design. I recommend we use the simplified small flag designs at Commons:Category:Flag icons instead.--Pharos 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I vastly prefer the first to the second; and the sizes of the latter can't be normalized; the ones you're suggesting are all laterally squished, with incorrect proportions. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: The beauty of using the real thing is that if one wants to see the little details (cf.   POR for example) just click on the flag! – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is that the designs are simplified so that you can actually recognize the flags at small scale. It would be possible to code it to click on the flag icons and go to the main flag images, if one wanted to. Also, if you have problems with this particular set of simplifications, it is always possible to modify them.--Pharos 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find the US icon any more recognizable than the 22px version of the "real thing" - in fact, less so because the proportions and colors are wrong. Also, using a fixed small size image totally obsoletes the "size=" parameter, so you could not use the standard templates to render flags at any size, but only the default size. Andrwsc 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I recognized the point, Pharos, I just think that the "simplified" icons look bad. They look cartoonish and amateur, like something from the Web ca. 1995. And as noted, they simply don't work. If you click on them to get a good look at the flag, you don't get a good look at the flag. While there is a hack that lets images act as anchors to something else around here, there's been talk of TfDing that template, just in the last week. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

year variables?

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I spoke with Andrwsc (talk · contribs) on my talk page about the following, and he suggested I bring it up here. Rather than paraphrase, I'm going to C&P the conversation here and then elabourate if anybody has any questions. – pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Template:Country data Canada

Hi, I just now noticed your message on Template talk:Country data Canada. These templates are used internally by the {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, and {{flagcountry}} templates. If you still need help, please let me know! Andrwsc 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I understand how these function at a very limited level, I think it has something to do with meta data and invisible fields? Anyway, I have a question. I know that Template:Country data Canada has variables for specifying flags for specific years (i.e. 1868, 1921, 1957), but these are very specific--that is, they don't parse for the years in between. If I type in {{flagicon|Canada|1900}}, I get errors when what I wanted it to show was the same thing I would have gotten had I typed in {{flagicon|Canada|1868}}. Many countries don't even offer the same limited functionality as Canada's, I know Template:country data Saint Lucia (or El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Armenia, etc.) doesn't offer different dates for the varying flags over the years. I know it's possible to add this parsing function because {{USN flag}} does it: I can type in {{USN flag|1809}} and get the appropriate United States naval jack which was flown in 1809. Can this same functionality be added to the {{flagicon}} template? – pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the mechanism used to select historical flag variants with the flag and flagicon templates is to use a string to identify it. Most of the time, that string is a year (as is the case with the three variants for Canada), but named labels are used for other countries (e.g. look at Template:Country data Germany to see the set of variants available there. In Canada's case, it seemed clearest to make the label names the same as the year of introduction instead of "red ensign #1", "red ensign #2", etc.
If there are some specific Country_data templates that are missing historical flags (you mention a few), then they can be easily added. Perhaps post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template if you are uncomfortable with making the changes yourself. The Country_data mechanism is relatively new, and we only used the set of historical flags that existed in the previous set of templates, but we can certainly add more.
As for selecting the flag based on the year, I'm not sure that we can easily do that in a backward compatible way, but again, I'd post a message to that project and we'll discuss it there. Andrwsc 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've charged ahead and added variants naval-1921 and naval-1957 to the template. Sure hope it works.LeadSongDog 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, especially if you don't know that there should be a different flag for that date and this would work it out for you. Could the backward compatibility issue be solved by adding a year parameter, then in the correct place #ifexpr could be setup relating to the years? mattbr 13:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not so sure that it is a good idea. In virtually every instance where there was a flag change, the change did not occur on January 1. Therefore, you don't always know what year variable to use for the template argument. Just what was the flag of the USA in 1912 anyway? It's different before or after July 4, 1912. Since you would have to go look at the documentation for template:Country data United States and/or read Flag of the United States to get your answer, that sort of defeats the purpose of having this super-smart template attempt to figure it out for you and potentially still get it wrong. It seems to me that the large complexity required to make this work in a generic way for hundreds of flag templates is not worth the marginal benefit obtained. Andrwsc 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How can people add non-national flag icons?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm running into trouble trying to add an appropriate flag icon for Battle of Peregonovka (1919). Thanks. Jacob Haller 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What image do you need? What is "Black" supposed to refer to? Andrwsc 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Either a plain black flag or a black/red horizontal bicolor with red on the top and black on the bottom. (noth were used). I assumed this was the place to look because the opposite side had a "flagicon". Jacob Haller 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well, if the flag image doesn't exist yet, then I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology or Commons:WikiProject Flags. Those folks are good with graphic editors etc. to create the correct SVG images. At this WikiProject, we're concerned with the maintenance of the templates that are used to render them in iconic form in articles. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bahrain Flag not displaying in flagicon template

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone help with working out why the Bahrain flag doesn't display in the Template:Country data Bahrain   It should be to the left of this sentence when diplaying correctly. - Ctbolt 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I purged the cache of the image on Wikipedia and Commons and it fixed the issue. If it still isn't displaying for you, you need to clear your browser cache. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks - Ctbolt 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Text showing instead of West Indies flag icon

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Four of the testcalls at Template:Country data West Indies are not working, showing Flag of West Indian cricket team instead of the flag itself. I don't know what's wrong; any ideas? (Yes, I have purged the cache.) – Avenue 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems right now. None of the underlying templates have changed, and this kind of problem has almost always been a cache issue before. Andrwsc 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's working again for me now too. Thanks for checking. – Avenue 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries! I wish I knew how to stop this problem from happening, as it does from time to time. These flag templates are quite stable now, so it's not going to be an issue with them in most cases. Andrwsc 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Wrong venue for dispute; take it up at Flag of Northern Ireland, edit to template to warn against abuse proposed below.

Northern Ireland is currently using this   which is incorrect, Northern Ireland dosent have and never had a flag, the Ulster banner used in that icon is the flag used and granted to the Government of Northern Ireland between 1953-1972, this government was disbanded in 1972 by the british government and its flag has no legal status, it cannot even be flow from any government building in Northern Ireland. This flag today is associated with Loyalist parliamilitaries and sectarianism in Northern Ireland. The Flagicon template for Northern Ireland should be removed.--padraig3uk 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't simply remove this; there are many sporting events and other context in which people are idenfied as representing Northern Ireland (vs. Wales, Scotland, England), e.g. in snooker. What could it be changed to? We have to be cognizant than any flag that represents Northern Ireland as an entity rather than as part of the Republic of Ireland is going to irritate nationalists, while use of the RoI flags like the yellow Ulster provincial flag (see provincial flag is going to irritate unionists. But we need some symbol in this template, whether an official flag or not. Is there any symbol (just the red hand by itself, or whatever), that wouldn't piss off both sides? – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of this WikiProject and of these templates is merely to provide a standard mechanism for the rendering of flag icons. No statement of legal status is implied. As long as there are instances where this flag is rendered in icon form (perhaps in reference to "Loyalist parliamilitaries and sectarianism"), then the template serves it's purpose, by ensuring a consistent size, correct alternate text, etc. You'll need to look at each article that transcludes the template and debate the semantic usage of that particular image on those pages. Removing the template altogether is not the appropriate action. Andrwsc 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hadn't even addressed this. The Provincial flag of Ulster should also have a template, since it will be relevant in historical articles, and so on. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
WP is suppose to represent facts, if Northern Ireland or any other country dosent have a flag then we shouldn't take it upon ourselfs to create one, if no flag exists then none should be used, this template is used on many political and geographical templates and is incorrect, wikipedia won't collapse because some sports person article dosen't display a flagicon. We dont have to remove the template all together just remove the flag so it only displays the link to Northern Ireland--padraig3uk 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes we would, if you look at the implementation of these templates. And again, you misunderstand the purpose of this template. The "fact" is that this particular flag exists and can be used on many Wikipedia pages in the instances you cite. If it is used on specific pages that you think are incorrect, then you need to take care of those pages individually. Removing the template will affect both correct and incorrect transclusions. Andrwsc 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the cases where this icon is used is from the NIR template which is refered back to this template project, Why should I engage in edit wars on many different template pages when this could be resolved by making one change here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Padraig3uk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
If you believe that you would have to engage in many different edit wars, then that means that you don't have any consensus for that change. Trying to avoid getting consensus by appealing to template maintaining editors here is not going to work. Andrwsc 15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'am not trying to avoid getting concencus by coming here, I think it makes more sense to have one discussion on the issue here, rather then having to repeat the same debate over numerous template or article pages, That to me is the more senseable way to go about this.--padraig3uk 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the only people who have this project page on their watchlists are those who are interested in the implementation and maintenance of the system we've developed. If you can get consensus from a community of editors who are more interested in your issue (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland), then we can make changes here. Andrwsc 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing POV and false information shouldn't require concencus, this is not a legal flag or ever was one for Northern Ireland it cannot even be used or flown in any Government building in Northern Ireland, the only offical flag that Northern Ireland has is the Union Banner, and if any flag has to be used then it should be that, not one that is used by loyalist extremists.--padraig3uk 15:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be reading closely. This flag template is not in and of itself POV or false information at all. See the Flag of Northern Ireland article: "In 1924, the Government of Northern Ireland was granted arms by Royal Warrant and had the right to display these arms on a flag or banner. This right was exercised for the Coronation in 1953. Between 1953 and 1972, this flag was the arms of the Government of Northern Ireland and commonly used during this period as a de facto civil flag. It ceased to have official government sanction when the Parliament of Northern Ireland was dissolved by the British government in 1972". This flag icon, therefore, is appropriate in context referring to the govt. of NI from 1953 to 1972, and is arguably also appropriate in a broader, civil NI context during that time span, and by your own admission is also appropriate for use for later references to loyalism. You have no addressed my question however: For modern use, where representative teams/individuals in sport, for example, are in competition between NIR, ENG, SCO, etc., what would you replace this with? Also, neither the Flag of Northern Ireland article nor the external source I linked to actually support your view that the Ulster Banner is in fact strongly perceived to be Unionist. Both sources only suggest that unionists prefer it, and both also note (and the external source illustrates) actually strongly pro-Unionist flags that are not perceived as anything but strongly pro-Unionist".
What really puts the last nail in the coffin of your anti-Union-Banner argument, at least with regard to sport, is this (from Flag of Northern Ireland): "It is regularly displayed by fans of the Northern Ireland national football team, and the Ulster rugby team. Some Ulster rugby supporters also display the Flag of Ulster. It is also used to represent the region at the Commonwealth Games and UEFA competitions." I.e. to this day, the flag is used both by unofficial broad public consensus, and by the official sanction of UK-wide and even international sports governing bodies as the flag (for sport purposes) of Northern Ireland. That's just it, period. If someone goes to the Northern Ireland article and slaps this flag in the infobox there, you have a strong rationale for having it moved instead to the History section somewhere (or simply removed; the Flag of Northern Ireland sub-article already exists for a reason, after all.) But you emphatically do not have a good argument for removing it from sport-related articles, and more to the ultimate point, have no argument at all, for all of the above reasons for getting rid of this template, or removing this flag from it. If you don't believe me, by all means go file a WP:TFD on this template, and see what happens. >;-)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This Icon template is not only used on sport articles, it is used for templates for political, geographical and other uses. And there is no-one argueing that the Ulster Banner can't be used for articles or templates that refer to the period of the Northern Ireland House of Commons 1921-72, but its use outside of that context is incorrect and POV.--padraig3uk 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you were effectively arguing for precisely that (no use for NIHC context) by arguing to get rid of this template entirely! – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As already said, if the template is being misused in certain articles, that misuse should be taken up at that article. Another idea would be to add a warning to this template's documentation that it should not be used except a) for sport-related topics, b) for historical topics of the appropriate time period, and c) for Unionist topics postdating that time period. That might help prevent misuse. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Why sport particularly? Isn't that just one situation in which Northern Ireland is contrasted with Wales, Scotland, England and the RoI? Shouldn't such an exception apply to all such cases? --Stemonitis 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said above (the a, b, c points, it's valid for use in articles on the NI govt. during the relevant period, for Unionism topics after that period, because Unionists are known to have adopted and used the flag as a civil, unofficial one, and it is valid for use in sport even today, according to the information so far available in the Flag of Northern Ireland article. If someone wants to challenge any of those uses, they need to take that up at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, which is an article with sourcing and POV requirements, not at this talk page, since templates have no such requirements but rely upon the relevant articles (when they are article-namespace) templates at all. I.e., this is the entirely wrong venue for this discussion. Anyway, there may well be other situations where the flag in question, and this template, legitimately apply, but the ones we know about so far are those three. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Its not just sport people many notable people from Northern Ireland has had this icon added to infoboxs about them, even in cases where it is clear the person would not associate themselves with this symbol.-- [ the previous unsigned comment was added by Padraig3uk (talk · contribs)] 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC) – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Already addressed above; abuse of a template should be fixed at the articles abusing it, and perhaps this template should be updated with a warning against such abuse. That the template can be abused is not disputed by anyone here, but this does not militate against the existence of the template or this flag appearing in it, since it does have at least 3 classes of legitimate use. This argument has gotten quite long. I'm marking it "Resolved" because it doesn't not belong here. An actual proposal to add an abuse warning to the template's documentation should be proposed in a separate thread so that it can be consensus-discussed on its own merits instead of clouded by previous off-topic debate about deleting the template entirely, whether this or that use is legit, what flag should appear in it, and where it is being abused. The topic that should actually be addressed on this page is whether the abuse is common enough to warrant a warning, and what that warning should say. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for warning against inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago62 comments16 people in discussion

It is propose that this template be added to the top of the documentation of:

  1. {{Country data Northern Ireland}}
  2. {{NIR}}
  3. Any similar templates
  4. The image pages of the flag on both WP and Commons.

This is what flags.net and Encyclopdeia Britannica say about the flag:

Flags.net says: This flag is a banner of the arms of the old Government of Northern Ireland. The flag ceased to be official in 1973, but continues to be used by Unionists. On no account should it be used for official purposes.
Encyclopdeia Britannica says: According to British tradition, a coat of arms or flag is granted to the government of a territory, not to the people residing there. Therefore, when the government of Northern Ireland was disbanded in March 1972, its arms and flag officially disappeared; however, the flag continues to be used by groups (such as sports teams) representing the territory in an unofficial manner.--padraig3uk 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Disagree; this isn't about anything to do with that article, no facts in which are being disputed. This is about the flag templates, and this is the venue for discussion of them. Heading corrected to reflect this. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer comment: One example I can give is |Nationality={{flagicon|NIR}} [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] in bio infoboxes. It's both incorrect and misleading. It should either have no flag at all or the Union Jack, which remains the only official civic and governmental flag of N.I. and it has been that way for several years. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Update: Consensus at the N.I. article and in other discussions elsewhere seems to be despite that the political-reality fact of N.I.'s status that using the U.J. for N.I. is perceived by some as just as politically partisan-PoV as using the U.B., so we shouldn't do that either, even if, say, the UN wouldn't bat an eye. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The flag is unoffical and can be used anywhere on Wikipedia on articles relating to Northern Ireland and to represent that nation. Wikipedia is not censored. Astrotrain 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: That's a straw man or very at least unnecessarily hyperbolic. No one has proposed censorship. The problem is the flag should not be used just anywhere in WP for any random reason. Anone "can" apply a picture of Homer Simpson to every infobox with out a picture, but that doesn't make doing so a good idea. Your objection doesn't seem to have a clear rationale.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As was stated above this is about the flag templates, and this is the venue for discussion of them.--padraig3uk 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: To further what Padraig3uk says, this simply isn't a debated issue any longer at Northern Ireland or Flag of Northern Ireland. The debate here is not at all about whether the conclusions arrived at by consensus at those articles (note that the former does not use that flag, and the latter explains precisely what the history and uses of the flag are); this would indeed be the wrong venue. The debate here is simply about attaching a notice to the top of the relevant templates, a completely different matter. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: As already pointed out above the the rationale is solid. The flag is being used as a "matter of fact" flag when it is POV and needs replacing.--Vintagekits 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. ITs use in sporting context should only be used in circumstances where that sports ruling body use that flag to represent NI. It would be absurd to have the UB used on a GAA page.--Vintagekits 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. POV is nothing to with it. While not official, the flag has de facto status due to its current usage. Nowhere does it claim to be official. It is POV not to use it. Some people may find it offensive, but that is their POV and irrelevant. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: I think you may need to re-read WP:NPOV. POV has everything to do with overuse of this flag in WP, and the flag does not have a de facto status except among Unionists. That's POV by definition. The exception is in sports (for whatever reason). I'm sure some anti-Unionists are upset about that, but too bad. Of course not using for sports in WP articles would be POV-pushing, to satisfy Irish Nationalist views at the expense of official sports federation usage. But not using outside of sports is avoiding a POV dispute, not a POV-pushing. Really, none of this is actually at issue here, and has already been hashed out the topical articles about this. The only thing at issue here is a notice on the relevant templates. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Support but) Oppose because of the way this was not brought up on the relevent talk/project pages. This has been the source of heated debate for several months on the NI talk page, but yet I only came across an obscure referecne to it by accident in the history of the BI template. --sony-youthpléigh 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but suggest the following changes to the wording:
a) For historical topics on Northern Ireland of the period 1921-1972
b) For sport-related topics dealing specifically with Northern Ireland
c) For Unionist- and Loyalist-related topics from 1921
d) In other contexts, where the appropriateness of the flag is clear
These changes would be only to "soften" the wording. --sony-youthpléigh 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: It did more than soften it though, by removing potentially important information, especially that with regard to governmental, semi-official and partisan usage. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderation of previous reply comment: I get your general point though; the original is probably too "bossy". A compromise wouldn't be hard to arrive at, I surmise. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: Yes, this is clearly a sockpuppet; it's first of (still) only two edits was customizing User:Princessieka/monobook.js, so this is obviously not a new user. It's not an anon who decided to stop being an anon, since anons don't have monobook.js files. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the disagreement over the flag is well documented and explained in Wikipedia, but it is still the only appropriate flag for identifying Northern Ireland as a distinct entity and furthermore, the infoboxes look odd when all the country's have flags except one. beano 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, simple solution is not to use flags in infoboxes, if a country or state dosen't have a flag we shouldn't invent one for it.--padraig3uk 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong reply comment: Beano, that rationale seems incredibly off-target to me. Wikipedia is not in a position falsely use flags, in ways that are misinformative and even directly misleading, just to keep a table looking pretty! And it's a moot point anyway, since the proper flag of Northern Ireland (other than in a sport context), like that of Lancashire, is the Union Jack, which can be used to keep your table pretty. PS: The fact that the issues with the flag are well-documented on Wikipedia means it should not be misapplied, not that it is okay to misapply it. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-Up comment: It's not a 'false use', it's choosing the most appropriate flag to represent Northern Ireland. The 'simple solution' would be to rmove flags from infoboxes, yes, but keep it consistent and remove all flags. That seems like another discussion though. It is entirely consistent with the use, for example, of the harp flag for the Kingdom of Ireland in Template:British Isles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beano ni (talk • contribs) 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Reply comment: "False use" is not at issue here; if you do not believe it is a false use, you need to take that up at Talk:Northern Ireland and Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. A careful read of both indicates that there is broad and well-reasoned consensus that using the U.B. outside of the contexts outlined in the proposed template notice above is in fact very inappropriate, meanwhile there are some flaming editwarriors on the topic who seem able only to produce a counter-rationale that is logically inconsistent, that defies or simply ignores the cited facts at Flag of Northern Ireland, that blatantly violates WP:NPOV, and/or that just fails to address concerns raised against overbroad use of that flag. A handful of cranks does not mean that consensus has not been reached. The issue here was whether to install a notice on the template. Because consensus can change there of course isn't any particular reason that the specific wording of the notice couldn't be altered at some point. To get back to the points that are legitimately at issue here: Yes, if the flag is contentious, simply don't use one. No, don't destroy all use of all flag templates simply because of a dispute about some particular flag(s). Let's not be silly. :-) There are various other disputes, e.g. over Taiwan, Palestine, East Timor, etc., etc., etc., and no one has proposed doing away with flag template usage in infoboxes altogether because of such issues. Eh...until now. The harp flag matter is a red herring. The propose notice already states that using the U.B. to represent N.I. during the period when this flag and its related coat of arms were applicable is an appropriate usage; no one's questioned that in the debate at all. Application of the U.B. to all N.I. topics in general is not equivalent at all; rather, it is comparable to saying that the ancient harp banner should be used to represent Ireland today, which it isn't of course being used for (sensibly so). – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it is impossible to create hard rules that can apply to all instances where this flag might be used. Each individual article needs to find its own consensus. As an aside, I also object to this project talk page being used as the forum for this discussion. It is wholly inappropriate. This WikiProject deals with the technical implementation of flag icon templates (i.e. the syntax of using them). The semantics for individual flag usage should be discussed elsewhere (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, perhaps). Andrwsc 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: As already noted, the issue before this talk page is whether to install a note on a template. While some objectors are raising issues that do properly belong at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland instead, and some old hands at that talk page might want to twiddle with the wording of the notice, that really has nothing to do with this proposal. I.e. your !vote mostly appears to be addressing issues that simply aren't present in the proposal. The one you do raise doesn't actually seem applicable. The draft notice does not create a "hard rule", it describes four general classes (the fourth all-encompassing) in which use of the flag can be handled appropriately. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment – Please re-read my statement. All my comments about the inappropriateness of this discussion on this project talk page are prefaced by "As an aside, ....". That means that those comments are not part of my vote. As for my singular reason for opposing this proposal, I believe that the "warning box" as written does attempt to create "hard rules", by using language such as "This template should not be used" - despite the vague, catch-all nature of the fourth "permitted usage". Andrwsc 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment – Well, not exactly. You didn't propose a discussion about what what we should write in the notice header; you proposed that the header you wrote be added to some template documentation pages. Having said that, I took your subsequent invitation to heart and thought about how the notice could be worded. Now, I'm even more opposed to this notice! I think what's missing is that we need some sort of "policy foundation" to build upon. Basically, I think the NI flag usage guidelines need to be based on some global guidelines. They cannot be stated in isolation. I think that some of the ideas currently being discussed/proposed at Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags are a good start, and I am hopeful that they can be progressed to become standard guidelines in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Only at that point do I think we could write effective "addendums" to handle specific situations for individual flags. In the meantime, I don't think you can write rules/guidelines for one flag by itself, when no other flags have any restrictions at all. Andrwsc 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The installation of this text is merely to satisfy political POV. The fact is that the flag of Northern Ireland exists, and it represents Northern Ireland(!). Until such time as Northern Ireland creates for itself a flag which is more acceptable to its populace, the current flag should remain in usage when it is necessary to differentiate Northern Ireland from the other three countries of the United Kingdom by use of a flag. Templates using funny shapes, symbols or even nothing at all, can be confusing and certainly lack consistancy.
    Furthermore, this campaign – and it is a campaign – to rid Wikipedia of the Flag of Northern Ireland is derisive and disruptive. The situation previously, while not ideal, was at least less confusing and certainly less time-consuming. Presumably that is part and parcel of the campaign though.
    --Mal 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: TINC, Setanta. There surely are some partisan editors who, for personal political reasons, would like the U.B. to never appear on Wikipedia at all. There isn't any evident lurking organization of any such cranks on WP, however, and none of them appear to be present in this debate. If you believe that they are, then I have to respectfully suggest that you've come here with far too much of a partisan position yourself, are making highly negative assumptions without evidence, and intentionally interpreting everything said here to purposefully support your conspiracy theory, instead of actually reading what is being said. Your edit summary with regard to this topic at an article where you restored the U.B. to a biographical infobox tends to support this view; you appeared to not understand or at least not acknowlege a single point being raised here or elsewhere on the topic, particularly that use of the U.B. as a marker of of nationality in infoboxes (even of sportspeople, for whom this flag is only appropriate in sports statitics lists/tables - i.e. the flag applies to them professionally, not personally) is a WP:NPOV transgression. You, like Beano insist that generic usage of this flag is perfectly okay, but multiple strong objections have been raised to this, in at least four forums on Wikipedia, backed by solid reasoning that has yet to be shown faulty in any way. (FYI, I've simply removed any flag at all from that article, which seems to be the only way around the POV dispute, and was the solution arrived at for the Northern Ireland article itself, though it is occasionally reverted for a short time to either the Ulster Banner or the Union Jack). Please stop interpreting this as an "us vs. them" battle and instead recognize it for what it is: Wikipedia trying to deal with an irresolvable POV war in a neutral fashion. See Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags, where the growing consensus is that subnational entities should generally be represented with the flag of the sovereign entity, but that in a case of a strong political dispute like this, the flag should simply be absent until such time as the dispute is resolved. And that, to come full circle, was the point of the template warning notice proposed here. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, This is what the British Government says about the Ulster Banner:
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What legislation covers the definition of the form, shape and design, and any rules about the permitted use, of (a) the union flag; (b) the English flag (cross of St George); (c) the Scottish flag(St Andrew's saltire) (d) the Scottish royal lion flag (e) the Welsh flag (dragon); (f) the flag of Northern Ireland. [HL1099]
18 Jan 2007 : Column WA181
Lord Davies of Oldham: (a & b) There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross). There are no rules about the permitted use of the union flag or English flag (cross of St George) on non-government buildings, provided the flag is flown on a single vertical flagstaff and neither the flag nor the flagstaff display any advertisement additional to the design of the flag as explained under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Government departments are restricted to flying flags on 18 fixed days a year in compliance with rules issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which considers it improper to fly the union flag upside down and requires that the flag should not be defaced by text or symbols and should be treated with respect.


(c & d) There is also no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the Royal Arms of Scotland (here referred to as The Scottish royal lion flag) or the St Andrew's cross, but the design is firmly specified in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. The Royal Arms of Scotland can only be used by the Sovereign or Her Great Lieutenants when acting in their official capacity. The Scottish flag(St Andrew's cross) may be flown by Scots and to represent Scotland on all occasions; however, under The Act of Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, cap. 47 individuals may not deface the flag by placing a symbol on top of the flag or use it in such a way that suggests it is his/her personal property.
(e) There is no specific legislation about the Welsh flag design or rules about permitted use.
(f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.
For all flags, consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which requires flags to be treated with respect, not to be defaced by text or symbols or flown upside down. [23] --padraig3uk 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Padraig, the legal status of the flag is not disputed. The fact remains that the flag does represent Northern Ireland though. "The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland." It is not the only flag and since it is not unique to Northern Ireland, is neither the most appropriate. beano 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence to back this "does represent" assertion at all, Beano. The article on the topic directly contradicts you as does a comprehensive external source alread cited elsewhere here, with the sole exception being the sport context. Outside that context, it is well-sourced as a wholly partisan political symbol in modern N.I. This makes it very, very troublsome under WP:NPOV (which is a Policy, not just a Guideline). I hope I'm actually making it clear that I have no personal position on the merits of the flag or either side of the political debate; for me this is absolutely nothing but a Wikipedia policy problem. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Well if your not disputing the legal status of the flag, then why insist on using a flag on templates and articles where it is not relevent or factual. If there is no current flag then none should be used.--padraig3uk 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Indeed. The long quote (which isn't entirely relevant here; if people want to dispute the facts, take that up at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland) eludicates mainly that mention of the U.B. at all was conspicuously absent. As far as the government is concerned that flag doesn't even exist any longer (if you understand heraldry and vexillology, this stance is actually quite appropriate in its context). Humour break: Note the first quoted paragraph saying it is "improper to fly the union flag upside down". How would one tell? It's precisely the same upsidedown! Heh. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The Union Flag is not the same upside down. The St Patrick's cross is not centred on St Andrew's. Another discussion altogether though. AFAIK the flag can only be flown upside down to indicate distress. beano 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The quote above gives little new material, apart from the fact there is not much British legislation on any flags, and that the Union flag should be flown on government buildings. Regardless, this is not a legal issue. Jonto 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The most recognisable symbol of Northern Ireland should not be censored just to suit a vocal minority, eager to take offence. Jonto 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: Hyperbole does not a logical argument make. This has nothing to do with censorship or minorities, only to do with WP:NPOV. It has been well-established already that outside of sport, the remaining use of this flag is uniformly Unionist political symbol. Applying the flag to infoboxes and other situations outside of sports statistics tables in references to N.I. today or in general is a WP:NPOV violation, among others including WP:V and WP:NOR (or together as WP:ATT if you prefer), because it a) advances a political symbol of one side of the debate as "the" symbol for the debated topic, and b) implies a political stance that the subject of an article may not actually hold at all. This point simply isn't logically debatable. It's like using a flag featuring either the donkey or the elephant symbol of the two major competing American political parties as a stand-in for the US flag. The fact that N.I. has no flag (outside of sport) other than the Union Jack is strange, but it's simply an incontrovertible fact we have to live with for now, well documented at the article on that topic. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply to SMcCandlish Your responses indicate that you have little understanding of Northern Ireland, and should maybe look at the history of the Northern Ireland page over the last 4 years where the flag has always been prominent until the recent zealous campaign by 2 or 3 users to remove it. The flag, whilst not 'official' is today the most easily recognisable symbol or Northern Ireland, and any google search or other form of research will indicate this.
Your ignorance is most prevalent on Northern Ireland issues when you denounce the Northern Ireland flag as merely a unionist 'political symbol' - OF COURSE it's Unionist, but that's only because Northern Ireland ITSELF is unionist by definition - Northern Ireland is the region of Ireland where the majority of people wished to maintain the union with Great Britain and hence the border and 'Northern Ireland' was created in the first place. Therefore anything associated with Northern Ireland will inherantly be unionist. If it was up to Irish Nationalists (note I say Irish Nationalists and not Ulster Nationalists) there wouldn't be ANYTHING or ANYONE 'Northern Irish', and there would only be people or things in terms of 'Irish'. Northern Ireland does NOT have a 'nationalist symbol' because Irish Nationalists by definition don't want Northern Ireland. Some Irish nationalists waged a 40 year bombing and murder campaign to destroy Northern Ireland itself - many of these people don't care for, or even recognise Northern Ireland, never mind its symbols or flags - why on Earth would many nationalist even WANT a flag for a region that some don't recognise in the first place? Too often I have seen 'compromises' made on Wikipedia just to prevent edit wars - Wikipedia is not the place for political lobbying campaigns or compromises on issues where these compromises don't exist in reality. With recent political developments some Nationalists now may claim to recognise Northern Ireland, but these nationalists should use the new Northern Ireland Assembly for lobbying and bringing up any problems if they feel anything is too 'unionist', but this is not what Wikipeida is for. Wikipedia should just be there to present the facts as they are, and report them as they are at present, not what others would like them to be in the future.
Jonto 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely Jonto. I hadn't noticed this reply of S McCandlish's until now, but they clearly show their ignorance of the situation in the above post and border on the plainly offensive by comparing the flag of Northern Ireland to some flags containing donkeys or elephants! That the government no longer exists, and that some people within Northern Ireland (and apparently elsewhere too) don't particularly like the flag has, as S McCandlish points out, been very well documented in (not only) the article about it (but also many other articles that go on about the issue as if nothing else about Northern Ireland is of any import!). That is all Wikipedia needs to do - to recognise that fact as it is fact, and move on until such a time as there is another flag created which uniquely represents Northern Ireland.
S McCandlish: using the Northern Ireland flag is more akin to using the flag of Texas than symbols of animals. In fact, it is far closer to using the flags of Scotland, Wales, England, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, Cornwall, Devon, Shetland, Isle of Wight or Yorkshire. --Mal 08:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's like using a flag featuring either the donkey or the elephant symbol of the two major competing American political parties as a stand-in for the US flag. The fact that N.I. has no flag (outside of sport) other than the Union Jack is strange, but it's simply an incontrovertible fact we have to live with for now, well documented at the article on that topic.

  • Humorous observation: I find it funny that even the Nazi flag hasn't garnered debate like this. What is it about Irish politics that sparks such argument? – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal note: I apologize if I'm bordering on tendentious above; it's just exceedingly frustrating to me to see a clearcut WP:NPOV problem resolution discussion turn into a rehash of a political debate (one that has really actually been settled, if judged on the basis of logic and facts rather than heat of emotion), in which those seeking to solve the issue for WP policy purposes are effectively labelled Irish Nationalist/Republican conspirators by sensitive editors who appear to have simply assumed the worst before even entering this talk page. Being opposed to abuse of the Ulster Banner is not partisan but entirely meta-political and focused on the POV problem from a Wikipedia encyclopedic neutrality position. No one here has expressed any general opposition to the U.B. at all, and characterizing them as a POV pushing political cabal is quite unfair, as well as severely missing the point. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Rationale is simple - the UB is not the flag of NI (FACT). When it was, it was the flag of an oppressive sectarian regime, abolished by the British because it had become an unsupportable embarrassment in the democratic world. It is not representative of modern NI and is offensive to very many people. using this is akin to using the flag of apartheid South Africa. (Sarah777 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Additional comment: Sorry SMcCandlish if this appears to contradict "No one here has expressed any general opposition to the U.B. at all" - I don't care who waves the Swastika anywhere (being anti-censorship) so long as Wiki doesn't claim it represents modern Germany. (Sarah777 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Reply comment: No need to apologize to me. I'm a big fan of Godwin's law. >;-) While I don't have any well-formed opinion on whether your side or the other's is right with regard to N.I. politics, I think the fact that editors like you feel so strongly about this is ultimately the proof of the pudding (or in the pudding or whatever that silly metaphor really is). Some people feel very, very strongly about this, and that's the entire point. It doesn't matter who is "right" (if that concept even really applies); the fact of the disputatiousness is in and of itself evidence of the PoV problems raised by use of this flag outside of the limited purviews outlined by the proposed template notice-header. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to reply comment: I am a great believer in Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies!! As punishment for falling into this trap I will now cease (again) talking about this issue (unless someone calls a vote, of course). (Sarah777 08:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose as per [[[User:Beano]] above.
Reply to SMcCandlish: I never suggested there was an "organisation" on Wikipedia as such. Evidence however of what I did say is clear throughout Northern Ireland-related Wikipedia articles - especially since the beginning of this year. Whether or not there are political objections to the flag are not of my concern particularly, nor should they be of concern to Wikipedia. Before you accuse me, personally, of transgression of NPOV with regard to my edit of an article, it might be wise to point to the article in question.
Having investigated, I see you changed an edit on the article on Alex Higgins directly after my edit. This concerned an infobox and the Flag of Northern Ireland. If this is the article to which you are referring, I can assure you that my edit was made out of logic - not some transgression of NPOV. Fact was, the article infobox clearly stated Higgins' nationality is Northern Irish. The Infobox had the wrong national flag - that of the United Kingdom. I changed the flag to reflect the fact that his nationality states he is Northern Irish, and therefore the correct flag is the flag of Northern Ireland. This is not "WRONG" as you implied in your edit comment. Nor is it POV.
The situation with the article on Northern Ireland is not a "solution" either - it is a temporary pause while debate rages. The article currently, incorrectly excludes the flag of Northern Ireland from the infobox and suggests that there is no flag. In the case of Alex Higgins, he comes from Northern Ireland, he played his sport representing Northern Ireland, his nationality is given as Northern Irish in the infobox of the Wikipedia article.. so, in common with other articles (such as Steve Davis for example), the flag of Northern Ireland should be there also. If you are going to remove that flag, then also remove the one for Steve Davis - be consistant. There is simply no logic to your reasoning.
You should stop interpreting this as a "them and us" 'battle' and recognise it for what it is: reporting fact. The template 'warning' notice is of a political POV'd nature and is patronising and basically useless. Debate will still rage no matter what. Wikipedia shouldn't favour one POV in place of another to begin with. What is the template supposed to 'warn' people about anyway? It appears to amount to nothing more than some kind of threat, to be frank.
You talk of hyperbole and then make a statement such as, "use of this flag is uniformly Unionist political symbol". Let me explain to you this: national (whether sub- or fully) flag are political, by their very nature. Use of the flag of Northern Ireland is not "uniformly Unionist" either, although only a few unionists particularly object to it. You also make incorrect statements such as, "There is no evidence to back this "does represent" assertion". Further, you make the statement, "I don't recall that anyone said it was a legal issue" in reply to Jonto just after Padraig has posted a full page quoting the 'legal' status from question time in the House of Commons!
You then go on to say, "in which those seeking to solve the issue for WP policy purposes are effectively labelled Irish Nationalist/Republican conspirators by sensitive editors who appear to have simply assumed the worst before even entering this talk page" after you have suggested you are not taking sides. Quite clearly you are showing favouritism to just that attitude you are dismissing. You haven't had to deal with the emotionally-motivated editing of some, with regard to issues relating to Northern Ireland. You can therefore be forgiven for accusing some of being "sensitive editors" who have "assumed the worst". Fortunately though, Wikipediia doesn't revolve around you.
To top it all.. well let's just say that I hope you didn't just attempt to play the tired, old Godwin's Law method of arguing (I see you mention this very law later actually)!
You say, "It doesn't matter who is "right" (if that concept even really applies); the fact of the disputatiousness is in and of itself evidence of the PoV problems raised by use of this flag outside of the limited purviews outlined by the proposed template notice-header." But you don't seem to be able to grasp that the very notion of creating a 'warning' template is taking a 'side' on the issue!
The fact is that there will always be a number of people who object to anything that represents Northern Ireland as a separate entity from the rest of Ireland. But that doesn't mean that Northern Ireland has ceased to exist. By the same token, the Northern Ireland government ceased to be after it was suspended in 1972. Consequently it ceased to use the flag of Northern Ireland! But that doesn't mean that the flag of Northern Ireland - the only flag that represents Northern Ireland as a separate country - does not exist - it does. It is used by people who live there, and also by national and international bodies. --Mal 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply comment: I can't think of much to say that hasn't already been said. "The article currently, incorrectly excludes the flag of Northern Ireland from the infobox and suggests that there is no flag." That's just false. That flag hasn't been the flag of N.I. for quite long time, and there is no new one. The end. I wasn't accusing you personally of POV pushing (at that player article or elsewhere). The politicization of the N.I. flag issue is, in and of itself the WP:NPOV issue (except in sport, where it has official, and evidently politically neutral, official sports governing body acceptance very broadly; whether that is a good idea or not is open to question, but that's not a WP problem; it's simply a reliable fact). The warning template (which I've mostly given up on, to focus on WP:FLAGCRUFT instead) is advancing a "point of view" or a "side", in a sense, and it is this: This flag should not be used outside of contexts in which it is demonstrably not being used for political PoV purposes. Simple. It is certainly not taking any side, of any kind, on the unionist vs. republican debate you are interested in. I find that debate more tiresome than just about any on the planet (for me personally; if I lived in Ireland I'm sure I'd find it much more personally relevant.) PS: Sorry to butt in front of the comment below which chronologically preceded mine, but the comment above was addressed to me, and my reply doesn't address anything in the one below. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For someone who couldn't think of much to say, your reply is reasonable in length. The article does indeed exclude the flag of Northern Ireland fro its infobox - there was nothing false about my statement. The exclusion of this flag is not consistent with the other uses of the infobox and is politically motivated. The flag of Northern Ireland didn't stop being the flag of Northern Ireland after the devolved government we had was suspended. Northern Ireland still exists and the flag of Northern Ireland still represents Northern Ireland, oddly enough. It will continue to be the flag of Northern Ireland until a new flag is created and adopted. The end.
That the flag is not accepted by a couple of editors on Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's problem.
I am not interested in any "unionist vs. republican debate" and have strenuously attempted to avoid such. Kindly refrain from accusing me of such! --Mal 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment Mal, a number of points arise from your comments above, Firstly the issue of nationality, in the Alex Higgins example you state his nationality is Northern Irish, Mal you know full well that is false, there is no such nationality, people born in Northern Ireland are Irish firstly, they are also regarded as being British by birth, but they also have the option of Irish citizenship, or duel Irish/British citizenship, but there is no Northern Irish option available. I have no objection to the use of the Ulster Banner is sports infoboxes if the person has clearly associated themselves to that banner.
Secondly the Northern Ireland issue of the flag in the infobox is solved, Northern Ireland dosen't have a flag and no amount of POV pushing on your part will make the use of the Ulster Banner correct in that case, the flag is historical and no longer used to represent Northern Ireland or its government, nor is it ever likely to used again, as it would never recieve political concencus in Northern Ireland.
As for your comment above: You should stop interpreting this as a "them and us" 'battle' and recognise it for what it is: reporting fact. this is exactly how some editors in this issue are viewing the subject, between then or us, rather then the real issue which is WP should deal with facts not POV or wishful thinking on the part of editors. So lets deal with the facts. Northern Ireland had a devolved government from 1921-72, that government was granted a coat of Arms in 1925, and was entitled to use a banner to represent that government, this option was taking up in 1953 and the Ulster Banner was adopted as the Flag of the Government of Northern Ireland. So the use of the Banner in articles dealing with the period of that devolved government is factualy correct, nobody has disputed its use in these cases.
The use of the Banner on Articles of Members of the former Government of Northern Ireland between 1921-72 is acceptable use of the Ulster Banner as these politicans where clearly identified with it, although this wouldn't apply to every person elected to the NIHOC during that period as some members clearly wouldn't identify themselfs to that banner, so we have to be careful in its use in these cases.
What is being objected to is the use of the flagicon in articles or infoboxs/templates dealing with Northern Ireland since 1972 these clearly shouldn't use the Ulster Banner unless its shown in a historical context, as the flag of Northern Ireland ceased to exist legaly when the government it belonged to was dissolved in 1973.
The reason behind the proposal here is to try and prevent the misuse of the flagicon templates within WP, it also sets out when it is reasonable or NPOV to use the flagicon template and when it is not, its a guideline its open to debate on the wording.--padraig3uk 08:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Padraig: (paragraph for paragraph here again) If you read the edit comment summary, you should easily be able to follow my logic regarding the Alex Higgins article. Again, look at the article on Steve Davis and various others. I do not need a lecture on nationality from you, or from anyone else. Nor am I interested any longer in your petty, politically-motivated opinions about the Ulster Banner.
I don't believe the issue regarding the Northern Ireland article's infobox is "solved". The article is still locked from editing, and still reflects a false and inconsistant viewpoint. I am not attempting any such "POV pushing" - I am merely trying to re-establish the most stable and consistent version of the article - one that reflect facts and not political viewpoint. The flag is only historical insofar as it was created in history. It has not been uncreated, nor has it been replaced. It remains the flag of Northern Ireland. Whether it "recieves concencus" or not is by-the-by. You may not like it and I may not like it, but there it is.
Again, the fact that the devolved Northern Ireland government was suspended in 1972 has no bearing on the fact that the flag of Northern Ireland represents Northern Ireland(!). There is no other flag that represents Northern Ireland uniquely.
In you paragraph regarding the use of the Northern Ireland flag on particular articles re the former government - you use the word "acceptable". Your opinion on what is acceptable and what is not, isn't Wikipedia's problem. Please try to stick to the facts. It is not a matter of who "identifies with" the flag nor who rejects it. It just is.
Again, you talk of objection to the flag of Northern Ireland based on the defunct devolved government. It doesn't matter. Wales didn't even have any kind of devolved government until recent years, yet it still had a flag. Scotland hadn't had its own devolved government for centuries, until recently. It still had a flag. Your point about the existence or not of the Northern Ireland government is moot I'm afraid.
I agree that there are too many flag icons in articles, and they seemed to spring up fervantly in Wikipedia in the second half of last year. In the new UK town infobox, I was the one who questioned the addition of flag icons to it. Fortunately the idea of using icons was dropped in favour of more useful lists. But if the facility was created for a specific purpose: to differentiate between the different regions of the UK, for example, then I see it as an obvious step to ensure that there is consistency between the articles. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with POV.--Mal 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Overuse in sports: Someone commented somewhere above that it should be okay to use the Ulster Banner in the infoboxes of Northern Irish sports people. I beg to differ. It is appropriate to use it in lists of international sports stats next to that person's name, if they play for a (nominally) national N.I. team, or (e.g. in non-team sports like snooker) represent N.I. internationally, in a sport the governing body of which uses that flag to represent N.I. And that's pretty much it (cf. rugby - they use a shamrock instead because evidently that sport doesn't use the U.B. to represent N.I.) A player's infobox is first and foremost about that person as a person, and using the N.I. flag to represent their nationality has a human being is no more appropriate for a sportsperson than it would be for a novelist or a bank robber. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinion of WP:Flags

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I think these templates such as {{USA}} should have the flag removed or the template should removed for the majority of pages as per WP:Flags (Gnevin 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

That is an essay not policy. Furthermore, making mass edits to templates used as many places as is the case here would be a certain way to kill off the servers. Valentinian T / C 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about changing these without consensus which I know properly wont happen a once off change would not kill the server , their is a police somewhere that states we should only worry about the project and let the server people worry about load. Also i am a wear is a essay but was looking for opinion on this. In a nutshell why have
WP:PERF is the "don't worry about the servers" thing. Carcharoth 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose moot - document totall overhauled, and two comments: Not only is WP:FLAGCRUFT an essay, it's one that needs a lot of work. I'm in the process of doing a total overhaul of it. Secondly, its WP:FLAG and WP:FLAGS shortcuts should go to this WikiProject instead (for the same reason that WP:N doesn't go to WP:NNOT; we don't use shortcuts to link to the opposition to the obvious topic of the shortcut. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Overhaul now complete, though it's big and bold enough a revert is likely, actually it looks like it stuck after after all so here's a link to the history version. I'm sure it has some remaining issues, though some of the one's I've seen raised in the past that could apply to the new version, like "don't use   IRL to refer to Ancient Ireland" strike me as total WP:BEANS or at very least WP:CREEP, since the templates are generally not being frequently abused that way. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It would also make sense to make the redirect point to WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Valentinian T / C 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh. They've already got enough going there, and for Wikipedian purposes this project is more important/more used. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. WP:Flags is not policy. A Style discussion points out that [[New York]] {{USA}} is not proper in text but flag icons may be proper in places such as tables, where abbreviations are often also appropriate. Misuse of {{USA}} is a style problem for the affected articles, not the template. (SEWilco 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
  • This is not a vote. This is not a vote only me drawing the attention of a project that might be interested , we've already had helpful additions from people at this project, If you have a problem with the draft by all mean raise them here but also consider updating the draft to reflect your issues (Gnevin 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
Which project do you refer to? – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Two bug reports

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

See Template talk:Country data Chinese Taipei and Template talk:Country data United States for two bug reports, one with regard to missing flag options, the other (respectively) about a flag simply not diplaying (tested in both Safari/Mac and Firefox/XP). – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone looked into this further? I've posted test case at the US talk page, and don't know enough about the guts of the flag metatemplates to confidently fix the Taipei situation myself. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd make a WP:BOLD move and simply fix them yourself; it took me about 3 minutes to add the Chinese Taipei variants. Let me know if this is OK. As for the US flag, it appears to be a cache issue (as per some previous comments on that talk page) so no work is needed on the template side. Andrwsc 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't feel confident enough that I understood the fine workings of those templates to WP:BOLD it. And thanks for the note about the US flag issue; I hadn't seen the comment. D'oh. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, no worries! User:Ligulem has created a fairly elegant system for these templates, and I've seen several other editors start adding new variants, but I guess it's still a bit involved to figure out how it works. If you cut&paste from an existing template, you should be ok! As for the cache issue, I would like to know how to fix it myself since it is a frequently occuring problem, judging from the comments I've seen. Andrwsc 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: I've tried every purge I can think of - the commons page, the WP image page, and the WP template page - and it hasn't worked. There may just actually be something wrong with the SVG image file. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have fixed the US 13 star flag problem. I re-saved the current SVG file in Inkscape as a "Plain SVG" (without Inkscape extensions) and that seemed to do the trick. The file size is about 8x smaller too. The only problem is that I was a bit stupid in my upload on Commons, accidentally adding "Image" to the filename (e.g. Image:Image-US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg) but I've posted a request for help on Commons helpdesk to move it over. Here is what it looks like at 22x20px:  . Andrwsc 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy: You just upload a new copy at the correct name (which in this case will overwrite the original that is giving us this display problem), with the same licensing, description, etc. details, and then speedy delete the original that's at the bad name. Less helpfully, I don't remember the exact name of the speedy del. template over there, but finding it is probably a matter of putting "speedy deletion" in the search box at Commons and hitting "Search" (as opposed to "Go", which would probably bring up images relating to speedy deletion on WP.) – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I only just created a commons account yesterday, so there's not much I could do as a new user. Another user has updated the commons SVG with my reduced version, but it doesn't seem to make a difference yet. Perhaps now it is a cache problem. Andrwsc 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deprecate old templates

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Proposal rescindend by proponent.

Rescinded The old-school {{USA}} templates need to be deprecated and their extant usage bot-replaced site-wide, then the templates redirected to their correct {{flag}} equivalents or better yet just mass TfD'd. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but you will get significant opposition to this. There are a lot of editors who prefer {{USA}} instead of {{flag|United States}}. Andrwsc 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I see that they've been replaced with code that simply transcludes the real deal; given that, I don't have any objection to these "shortcuts" any longer, since they won't present a maintenance problem. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we did that a few months ago. I also spent some significant time cleaning up the "shortcut" templates so that:
Andrwsc 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Noted. I've added one. In Country data as well. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country data Ukraine

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Few weeks ago I've added 1918 flag to this template but this flag doesn't render correctly. I'm not SVG expert but this flag renders properly when called with "round" px values, like 20 or 30px. Flag templates call for 22px wide and this size is not displayed - there is empty place and country link. Is is possible to fix this SVG file or fix template in any other way? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an SVG expert either, but I've encountered this situation before. I simply opened the image in Inkscape and re-saved it as "plain SVG" instead of "Inkscape SVG" and re-uploaded the smaller image file. The simpler version seems to have fewer rendering problems. You might want to try that and see if it works. Andrwsc 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bordered flags

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I notice that recently the bordered version of flags have changed. This is making lists that use the template becoming misaligned. For example:

  •   Name
  •   Another name
  •   Third name
  •   Fourth name
  •   Fifth name

Bordered flags are now slightly wider than non-bordered ones, and is causing lists to look bad. Can this be fixed? Thanks. --Simmo676 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I had been meaning to post a message here about that, so thanks for the prompt! These changes started to appear once editors started using the new MediaWiki syntax for image borders. Previously, many flags had two versions – with and without a black border. For example, Image:Flag of England (bordered).svg looks like  , but using the "border" option, Image:Flag of England.svg looks like  . One consequence, as you've seen, is the misalignment from a vertical list of images with and without this one pixel border.
One easy solution would be to add borders to all flag icons consistently. I actually did this to the Olympic Games flag templates (which use a different system for rendering the icons) a few days ago, and nobody has noticed and/or commented. For example, look at 2004 Olympic Games#Participating NOCs for a large list of these bordered icons.
So, if we use the "border" syntax for all flags, we eliminate the need to create and maintain dual versions of many flags, including several that currently would benefit from a border but don't have it today. (e.g.   vs.  ) However, it would add a gray border to certain icons that don't need it. (e.g.   vs.  )
I'd like to use the border syntax for all flags and deprecate the "(bordered)" flag images. Any major objections to this? Andrwsc 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as the result looks consistent and we don't get the jumbled lists, count me in. Valentinian T / C 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
From how the Olympics 2004 page looks with the borders and it makes them all nicely aligned and solves the flags with bits of white that weren't covered before like Austria, I think that's a good solution. --Simmo676 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since we have some combination of consensus and apathy, I boldly made the changes. About 10 hours ago I put borders on every flag icon, so they are completely consistent. No complaints yet. Andrwsc 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some dissent for you: I strongly disagree with the changes. Having grey borders around all flagicons is ugly. - PatrikR 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Patrick. I can understand borders for flags with large areas of white, like  ,   or   but I don't see any reason for bordering all flags. It looks really ugly and flags looks like JPEG images saved with high compression, especially on flags with proportions closer to 1:2 than 2:3 -  ,  ,  ,   or  . It's also senseless when flag has irregular shape, like  . Please think once again about reverting this change. Piotr Mikołajski 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think they look better with borders, not just ones like England and Japan, but   Hungary and   Austria with their white bar, though the Nepal flag does look stupid with one given its shape. However, I'd still point out that the thing I'd hope for most is that they're almost all (bar   Switzerland,   Nepal etc different shaped ones) the same width. --Simmo676 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the borders are better. Maybe PatrikR's problem is the grey colour. Maybe that can be changed… —MC 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that what we previously had was good, and would like to go back to that. (I.e. no borders on flags that don't need it, and use the "(bordered).svg" variants for white-background flags.) I don't care if the border color (in "(bordered).svg") is changed. - PatrikR 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As someone who actively maintains these templates, I assure you that the old system with "(bordered)" SVG variants was not good. It must be changed; the question is how? Please read the sub-section below for details. Andrwsc 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, having some flags bordered and some not produces alignment problems, while having all bordered looks plain stupid on a few ones (Nepal) and unaesthetic on most others which don't need it... —Nightstallion 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary of situation

It appears that we have a split opinion here, and I'd like to see some clear consensus before I go back and make any changes to these high-use templates. Here is a quick summary of the situation:

Bordered image variants

Recognizing that certain flags (such as   and  ) look poor in icon form because of the large amount of whitespace, alternate SVG images were created (such as   and  ). This solution has been in place for several months, but has a few drawbacks:

  1. It requires the creation and/or maintenance of more than one image per flag.
  2. Several flags that could benefit by a border do not currently have the alternate "(bordered)" SVG variant.
  3. There is some inconsistency in the color and size of the borders in those SVG files, so there are subtle differences in the icon versions.
  4. Since the border is part of the SVG image, it scales along with the image, producing undesirable results when the size= parameter is used to create larger icons.

MediaWiki border syntax

Now that the border option is available for images, it had started to be used for several flags, as a potential solution to all the issues listed above. You can see the improvement in   and   compared to the "(bordered)" SVG used above. However, the border option places a one pixel border around the image, so a partial implementation of the border syntax results in mis-aligned lists, such as:

  •   England
  •   Argentina
  •   Japan
  •   Germany
  •   South Korea
  •   France
  •   Sweden

To resolve this problem, I updated the main flag rendering templates to consistently use a border, such as:

  •   England
  •   Argentina
  •   Japan
  •   Germany
  •   South Korea
  •   France
  •   Sweden

The only(?) problem with this current solution is that while some additional flags benefit from the border (e.g. Argentina and France), other flags clearly don't need it and some people think they look worse (e.g. Germany and Sweden)

Possible solution

If we don't have consensus for the current solution, then I also oppose going back to the original method. I really think the "(bordered)" SVG images ought to be deprecated and eventually deleted. Perhaps a per-flag solution might work, where the size of the icon is adjusted for flags that have a border, like this:

  •   England
  •   Argentina, or
  •   Argentina
  •   Japan
  •   Germany
  •   South Korea
  •   France, or
  •   France
  •   Sweden

This is more work to implement, but not impossible. However, I anticipate some possible edit-warring over border or no border for flags like France, Argentina, Hungary, etc. This would need to be resolved.

Comments

Please place your comments here.

Support for current solution (borders on all flags)
  • I do not have a problem with borders for all icons, but I am willing to implement the per-flag solution if consensus mandates it. Andrwsc 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the consistency of the current solution. —MC 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally like them all having borders (except ones like Nepal), but if we were to go to per-flag ones as in the possible solution I wouldn't be too bothered. Though I would prefer it if ones like France and Argentina did have borders, as well as Austria and the Netherlands. --Simmo676 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Support for per-flag border solution
  • I support per-flag solution and I'm against borders for all. With per-flag solution we still have choice for use of bordered (or not) icons and we don't have "stupid" borders like in Nepal flag. Piotr Mikołajski 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - borders are a necessary evil, only apply them to those flags that need it. - PatrikR 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC) PS: I don't think France's and Argentina's flags need borders.

Help please: Template:Country data Malta

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I tried adding | flag alias-colonial = Maltaflag.jpeg to Template:Country data Malta, along with a variants block (copy/pasted from Template:Country data Germany), but it didn't like me. Could someone who understands the system better please (a) fix it for me (Malta needs an alias-colonial pointing to Image:Maltaflag.jpeg or an SVG thereof) and (b) put some better documentation into WP:WPFT to explain how to do this for people who haven't done it before? :o)

Thanks! – OwenBlacker 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Andrwsc 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Doh! That's irritatingly obvious. Thank you! – OwenBlacker 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seychelles

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

FOTW lists a colonial flag for Seychelles that I can't find on Wikipedia. Does someone fancy adding it? :o) – OwenBlacker 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. This project is more concerned about the templates to render those images, not the images themselves. Andrwsc 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Will do; thanks! – OwenBlacker 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid question: Ceylon and Aden

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Country data Ceylon doesn't seem to like my colonial flag either. I've managed to make it not arse everything up this time, but it's showing the modern flag, not the old one (Image:Lk~1875.gif); does the template not like GIFs or something? I can't see any reason why it wouldn't like it, but figured it's best to ask… – OwenBlacker 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with Template:Country data South Yemen, where I'd like commons:Image:Flag of the Colony of Aden.png to be the colonial image. Sorry for being quite so dense and quite so high-maintenance this afternoon! – OwenBlacker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed them, but I don't think the Aden flag under South Yemen is a very good idea. The alternate text ("mouseover" text) for the flag says its the flag of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, and the wikilink is to that article too. Much better to create Template:Country data Aden with the "alias" set to Aden (colony) or Aden Protectorate as appropriate. Andrwsc 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I did (briefly) think that at the time, but wanted to avoid creating a new file for a country that no longer exists. I've reverted the changes to T:CD South Yemen and created T:CD Aden, as you suggested.
Thanks again for all your help! If you're interested (and hadn't just looked it up in my contributions), the article I was editing was Counsellor of State, which had the wrong (ie modern) flags against each country. – OwenBlacker 08:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could help me out;

There is a page I've been working on for the past number of weeks which I was hoping to attach flagicons to (you can find the page in question here). However, the flags are not flags of countries, they are GAA county colours (if you know what that means, you can find them here). I would greatly appreciate if you could help me out on this. Deco16-10 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to use these templates to add icon-sized images to your page. Just put something like [[Image:Colours-of-Galway.png|22x20px|border]] in the appropriate place to display this:  . Andrwsc 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hungary 1940

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

I'd like to use this template to display the 1940 flag of Hungary in T-28 (Image:Flag of Hungary 1940.svg). Is this done with the variant parameter? Where are the docs for variant? —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 19:52 Z

I got it.
  • {{flagcountry|Hungary|variant=1940}} doesn't work:   Hungary
  • {{flagcountry|Hungary|1940}} works:   Hungary
Would someone in the know please update the docs? —Michael Z. 2007-07-18 20:00 Z
Update which docs? The ability to select a different flag variant is already documented for {{flag}} and {{flagcountry}}, as well as in the examples for Template:Country data Hungary. Where were you looking? Andrwsc 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I must have clicked through one of them and come to this project page to figure out which templates were to be used for what. The section on this page listing "optional parameters" doesn't mention "variant".
I also saw the docs at {{flagcountry}} and saw "variant =" listed at the top of the page, but that did nothing, as demonstrated above. And where do we find a list of variants? How do I use flagcountry to show the 1923 Soviet flag? [figured it out.] It's just dumb luck that I managed to render the correct Hungarian flag above, because I kept trying.
The template does not behave as expected (I still don't understand why). The docs are written from the developer's point of view, not the user's (I'll try to improve the docs for flagcountry). I'm not a newbie to using and developing templates, but I find this confusing. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 02:34 Z


I think I've made an improvement to the docs for {{flagcountry}}:

  • The basic parameter is made explicit ("name or three-letter code"), with a link to a reference (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3).
  • The options are arranged by user's goals ("size", "link text", "variant flag image") instead of being a list of code fragments.
  • Examples follow the explanation, and are separated by a line break.


But it's still lacking

  • Consistent usage of "variant=" seems to be broken. Consistency is good.
  • Flag variants: where is the list or lists?
  • Why not make alpha-2 country codes work too? They are much better known from top-level Internet domain names.

Please correct my mistakes. I suppose the docs in other places need to be synchronized. Why not make a single docs document, and transclude it all of the templates and the project page? —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 02:55 Z

Point taken about the quality of the documentation - I'll see what I can do to improve it. Thanks for the improvements! I'm still confused by your comment that Consistent usage of "variant=" seems to be broken. In none of these templates do you ever specify variant=anything. What are you specifically referring to? As for the flag variants, there is no "master list". It is distributed, in effect, by each template (such as Template:Country data Hungary) documenting its own variants. As for alpha-2, well, I suppose we could add all of them, but there has never been any demand for that in the 2-3 years that flag templates have been around. I think adding the complexity of yet another set of aliases for each country might add unnecessary confusion. Andrwsc 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The docs mention the "variant" parameter. But as you can see in my Hungarian-flag example at the top of this discussion, it only work by position, and not by explicitly using the parameter name "variant=". It really ought to be consistent with the use of "size=" and "name=". —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 03:12 Z
Well, there are many thousands of instances where a flag variant is used with these templates, and relatively few instances where size= and/or name= are used. It is literally a difference of two or more orders of magnitude. The choice of positional vs. named template parameter for the flag variant was well-chosen, I think, as it results in much more "natural" wiki markup. This was discussed several months ago, and consensus was for the current style. Andrwsc 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
But won't position continue to work the same way if the option for using the parameter by name is added?
I'm just saying that I totally inferred from the docs that there were three named parameters, and when I tried to use the third one, it didn't work. I totally see the sense in {{flagicon|France|Free}} but what I read in the docs seemed very different. Maybe it's the docs that need work, not the way the template works. I'm going to do a bit more work on Template:Flagcountry/doc. After you amend, improve and approve my changes, please carry them through to the other templates. (Sorry, I would like to participate in this project, but due to the real world I have very little time for even my Wikipedia top priorities right now). Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 03:55 Z
Okay, I see where the variant parameter options are documented, but how is a user to find this?
  • It's not mentioned in the usage docs, but as an aside under "Implementation"
  • The text is completely meaningless to someone who wants to use the template: "this template uses the data templates listed under category:country data templates".
  • Even if the user does click the link, what they see is not helpful, and there is no mention of the variant parameter, unless they keep clicking further.
I know this, because that's exactly what I did. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 03:27 Z
The docs really need a master list of country names and codes, with the special names listed. I realize that if it can't be generated automatically then keeping it synchronized with reality would be a problem, but I think that would still be much better than the current situation where the variants are essentially hidden from new users. —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 04:03 Z
I've thought about this, but I think it might be an impossible page to maintain. There are literally thousands of flags available for use with this template, with new ones being added all the time. I think the original solution that User:Ligulem implemented, by automatically adding templates to Category:Country data templates through the use of Template:Country showdata in the template code, is the closest thing we have to a directory now. It is guaranteed to be current, but of course, requires the user to click on each item in order to see the set of flags available for each name, so it's not as convenient as a page that shows the names and images together. I think there are several pages that list most of these flag images, and that may be enough for most users. The more obscure flags (and templates) aren't going to be widely used anyway. Andrwsc 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, with provincial flags and everything else included. I guess the country name or three-letter code is enough for most editors to figure it out. Where can I find the lists of flag images? —Michael Z. 2007-07-21 18:44 Z
Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/World Flags seems to be actively edited. Andrwsc 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Several templates nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 1 for a set of Country_data templates I nominated today for deletion, and my reasons for doing so. Andrwsc 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of Nazi Flag in the Fanta article

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There has been some discussion and edit warring over the use of the 1940 German flag in an article on the Fanta product which was originally formulated in Germany in 1940. A debate has opened for those interested: Talk:Fanta#Debate_on_use_of_flag_in_Fanta_article. SilkTork 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This WikiProject is probably not the best place for that kind of discussion. It is concerned with the how of flag icons, not the what, where, or why. You might want to post a message to Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags to reach the right editors. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed there is no flag for the Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County, in Xinjiang, China. Does anyone here no what the flag looks like or if there even is a flag? If there are any experienced Vexologists or people who know of any then that would be highly appreciated. Londium 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The best place to ask is Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. This WikiProject is concerned with how to render flag images as icons, not with what the images themselves look like. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please fix {{flag|Ireland|rugby}}

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

{{flag|Ireland|rugby}} should not have a border around it, as this makes it a flag image, and that symbol is not a flag, but an arbitrary non-flag symbol. Before that border was added, WP:FLAGCRUFT#Inventing new flags and using non-flag stand-ins was using this as the exemplary model of a non-flag image being used as a flag stand-in for when no legit flag actually applies, but if this isn't fixed, we'll have to remove it and find another example, as it is now violating the very principle being illustrated. D'oh. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How does the presence of a border imply that it is a real flag instead of something else? I don't follow that logic.
As for a "fix", all images that use Template:flag and its relatives use borders. There is currently no way to make it selectable per image. The other option is to use   for the rugby team, but I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union had consensus on the shamrock instead. Andrwsc 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Without a border, it's simply a shamrock icon that happens to fit within the same space as a real flag. With the border it's a flag. I'm not arguing in any way against the shamrock, only its being turned into a flag image. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The border does not make it a flag. Chandlertalk 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of WP:FLAGCRUFT, it certainly does. A flag icon can basically be defined as an image displayed by the {{flag}} family of templates that is rectangular in shape and bordered to visually indicate to the reader that the image is a represenation of a rectangular textile object commonly called a "flag". The deprecated practice at hand is the use of these templates to present made up "flags" that may mislead the reader. The use of these templates to present other images as flag stand-ins, for cases in which no flag is available, without misleading the reader into thinking that a real flag is being shown, is not being deprecated in the proposal. A shamrock icon that was sized to fit within the bounds of the template, had a transparent background and no border, would not convey the idea that it was a flag, and would simply appear as a iconic image in the shape of a shamrock, not a shamrock on a rectangular flag. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a "fake" flag that some wiki user created its the official flag of the IRFU or at least it was up to this World Cup , they now seem to be flying that green flag .Gnevin 07:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Then we shouldn't be using it as an example here! Anyone know of an image being used in a flag[icon] template that a) is not an actual flag, but a stand-in for the unavailability of a real one, and b) not in flag form (i.e. not bordered to look like a flag)? That's the example this proposal needs. And also not a map (we already use that as a different example). – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IRB vs. IRFU all-Ireland flags

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A different flag seems to be used officially by the IRB; see here: http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000001/index.html. It looks like the 4prov flag with something in the middle? Maybe the big logo on that page? —MC 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a great find. This should be brought to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union for discussion. If we can get an SVG image created from those components, we would have an appropriate replacement. We did the same thing for the field hockey team ( ) once a team flag was found. Andrwsc 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be this flag. --StuartBrady (Talk) 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the right one. Chandlertalk 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. —MC 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

General flag template breakage?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – It's a server issue; nothing is wrong with the templates or images.

Is it my settings or browser, or am I seeing a general breakage of the {{flag}} template system at the moment? {{CAN}} is appearing as something like (a) Flag of Canada Canada instead of the normal flag icon followed by country name, something like (b)   Canada (as a test,   Canada should look more like (b) than (a)). Similar probs seen for {{flag|UK}} -->   UK, {{flag|USA}} -->   USA, etc. Dl2000 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm experiencing the same problem with so many other flags, I can't name them all. Parutakupiu 02:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a recurring problem, and for some reason, has hit many flags today. You need to purge the cache of each image on Commons. The problem does not lie with this template system. Andrwsc 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having the same issue with a bunch of flags on {{Taxbycountry}}. Had to purge on the image page "?action=purge". Hope they fix it. Morphh (talk) 3:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The fix was only temporary. Not shortly after.. they started to break again. Morphh (talk) 4:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Same thing happening with {{ru}}. See 2007 Rugby World Cup#Nations. Morphh, I'm assuming you either did this for all of them, or at least well known ones. On given page, RSA, Canada, Japan, Italy, New Zealand, Romania and Namibia don't work. CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 08:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The effect is temporary and different for each computer.. I'm on a new computer today and all the ones I fixed yesterday for myself are having issues with this computer now. I left a message on commons. Morphh (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
From another thread elsewhere: "sometimes Wikipedia do not render some images for some hours but they usually come back. I have seen it for years. It seems to happen more often during high load. And it happened a lot the last few hours with our images here. I think it is a simple priority setting in the servers, when they are too busy they render the text but skip the images. --David Göthberg 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)" I.e., it is a server issue. I too have seen it many times, and yes, it is temporary. – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

{{mht}} and {{wht}}

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed the team handball templates, {{mht}}, {{mht-rt}}, {{wht}} and {{wht-rt}}. Just wondering if these should be renamed for consistency (maybe to thm, thm-rt, thw and thw-rt) before I create documentation for them...? --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't seen them before. My suggestion would be to use "hb" as the root template name. My naming style for the templates I created was to use the two letter "sport code" that the IOC uses on their website for each sport, such as this page for football. The only exception to this rule so far was to use "fh" instead of "ho" for field hockey, but most of the others ("fb", "bk", "vb", "ih") follow that style. They even have a placeholder web page for rugby under "ru", so I guess we can include that too! Thanks, Andrwsc 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you've moved them to {{hb}}, {{hb-rt}}, {{hbw}} and {{hbw-rt}}, and you've even created {{hb-big}}. Thanks! --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

{{nft}} and {{nrut}}

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've had a go at fixing {{nft}} and {{nrut}} – they're now basically flagless versions of {{fb}} and {{ru}}. This means that {{nft|Australia}}, {{nft|Canada}}, {{nft|USA}}, {{nft|U.S. Virgin Islands}} and {{nrut|New Zealand}} now work without a redirect, and country codes can now also be used with nrut and nft. Unfortunately, I can't get {{nft|Nauru}} to work. I've tried adding the "link alias-football" parameter, and I've purged the cache, but for some reason, I always get a redirect. Can anyone see what I've got wrong? --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see how to get <nowiki{{subst:}}</nowiki> to work recursively, so I've reverted my changes. Does anyone have any ideas? --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
MC seems to have fixed Template:Country data Nauru, so {{fb|Nauru}} etc. now work. Thanks MC! So that just leaves the substitution problem. (BTW, I notice that there are many transclusions of {{nrut}}, but hardly any of {{nft}}.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As User:MC demonstrated with his fix, you also need altvar = {{{altvar|}}} whenever you specify an override (link alias-football, flag alias-football, or name alias-football). I am working on a comprehensive documentation page for the flag template system (now that it's virtually complete!) and will mention this.
The other comment I wanted to make is that I'm not sure those templates are such a great idea. I'm not a fan of using "shortcut" template for inline prose text. Is {{nrut|Australia}} really that much better than [[Australia national rugby union team|Australia]]? Yes, it certainly is fewer characters to type, but you lose the standard wiki syntax which non-expert editors are more comfortable with. The only tangible benefit I see is that the article name could change and you would only need a single edit to "fix" all redirects, but I guess I'm not sold on the need for a template for just those purposes. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. Andrwsc 17:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had looked at the history for MC's fix, and spotted altvar – I hope nobody's made that mistake without realising. The documentation should certainly help. :-) Anyway, my line of thinking was that if we're going to have the {{nrut}} and {{nft}} templates, they should at least work properly! {{nrut}} not working for the All Blacks just seemed silly! OTOH, if they can't be substituted, I'm not sure they're a good idea at all. If you're considering removing them, I'd certainly ask on WP:FOOTY and WP:RU whether anyone still wants them. --StuartBrady (Talk) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
After I posted my message, I realized that nft is subst'ed as much as possible, so I guess that is reason enough to keep them. I would propose we subst all the nrut transclusions. However, you say that it can't be subst'ed with your version based on the country data structures? Andrwsc 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. AFAICS, the problems is that subst just substitutes – it doesn't seem to actually evaluate anything. --StuartBrady (Talk) 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the same problem with {{getalias}}. —MC 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Option to disable flag icons

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would really like to have some user controllable way to disable the display of all these flag icons – IMHO they are a real eyesore. RedWolf 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody was trying to do that at Template talk:Flagicon#attempt to hide. —MC 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  Done I have updated the templates to span the image rendering with a CSS class. Therefore, put the following in your own monobook.css page (or for whatever skin you use) to disable flag icons in your browser view.
.flagicon {
  display: none;
}
Note that I have only tested this with IE7, so please let me know if it doesn't work for other browsers. Andrwsc 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Not done I've had to revert this new feature. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interaction between CSS class over a span and template calls for the gory details. Basically, it worked for simple template transclusions of the flag templates, but not if they were used as positional parameters to other templates. I will continue to work on this. Andrwsc 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A few days ago, I nominated Template:DEE for deletion (for reasons provided on the TfD page), but as of this moment, only three editors have provided comments. There needs to be more opinion to reach consensus. Thanks, Andrwsc 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Football aliases for Ireland

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a little confused over the football aliases for Ireland. The following can be linked to with {{fb}}:

However, Ireland national football team (FAI) can't. Apparently both the FAI and IFA teams represented Ireland from ~1922–1950. (In fact, in the 1950 World Cup, some players were members of both teams!) Would {{fb|Ireland|football-ifa}} and {{fb|Ireland|football-fai}} make more sense, here? I think we'd also need something for the Irish Free State (1924–1936) – before the FAI started accepting players from Northern Ireland. Maybe {{fb|Republic of Ireland|football-freestate}}? ——StuartBrady (Talk) 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a little ugly, but I've made the following work:
  1. Use Template:Country data Ireland to continue to represent all-Ireland teams. Use Template:Country data Republic of Ireland to continue to represent the republic only, including the Irish Free State years.
  2. Modified Template:Country data Ireland to dynamically pick the wikilink based on the flag variant. For example:
    • {{fb|Ireland|FAI}} →   Ireland
    • {{fb|Ireland|IFA}} →   Ireland
    • {{fb|Ireland}} →   Ireland (keep this syntax for backward compatibility)
  3. Use the existing name parameter for the IFS naming
How does this look? Andrwsc 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
A name alias is needed to distinguish between the IFA and FAI teams. The 1950 FIFA World Cup qualification article uses "Ireland (FAI)" (and I think it should also use "Ireland (IFA)"). Also, I'm not convinced on the use of flags. Either they're both Ireland teams (in which case, FAI should also use Saint Patrick's Saltire), or they're really Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland teams (in which case, IFA should use the Ulster Banner).
I do think FAI and IFA are the right variant names to use, and I would obviously agree my proposed use of {{Country data Ireland}} and {{Country data Republic of Ireland}}, and yes, {{fb|Ireland}} is fine as it is. You are right about the name="Irish Free State", though – a variant for that would probably be a little over the top. —StuartBrady (Talk) 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the name alias per your suggestion (see changes in above testcall output), so is that what you had in mind? As for the flags, I just went by the use of the tricolour in the infobox of the FAI team article. I think the IFA variant ought to still default to the current flag, as that article refers to the team from the 1800s. But let me know if you think any other flag change is needed. Andrwsc 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The IFA article refers to the team from the 1882–1950. Ireland was partitioned in 1921. Either change would be an improvement, although it would probably make more sense to use the Ulster Banner for the IFA – just to avoid using the same flag for the two different teams. (Yes, both teams represented all-Ireland to a certain degree, so it could be argued that using the Saltire would be more accurate.) —StuartBrady (Talk) 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
To make this clear: {{fb|Ireland}} should still use the Saltire. There is no need to distinguishing between the IFA and the FAI before ~1922 because the FAI didn't exist. —StuartBrady (Talk) 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you might need to spell this out even clearer for me! Maybe I'm just dense today... Currently there are four target articles that we want to wikilink to, and I've noted my assumptions and questions for each:

  1. Republic of Ireland national football team – Use {{fb|Republic of Ireland}} or {{fb|IRL}} to produce   Republic of Ireland. The only other variant we'd use here is name=Irish Free State as described above (for   Irish Free State), and the flag would always be the tricolour.
  2. Northern Ireland national football team – use {{fb|Northern Ireland}} or {{fb|NIR}} to produce   Northern Ireland. There are no other flag variants we would use for this team.
  3. Ireland national football team (IFA) – use {{fb|Ireland}} or {{fb|IRE}} to produce   Ireland. Added today is the ability to use {{fb|Ireland|IFA}} to produce   Ireland. Should we have different flag variants here? Is this the one you want to use the Ulster Banner for, some of the time?
  4. Ireland national football team (FAI) – use {{fb|Ireland|FAI}} or {{fb|IRE|FAI}} to produce   Ireland. Does this article also need multiple flag variants? If it should only ever use one flag, which one - the tricolour (as is now used within the article) or the saltire?

Thanks for additional clarification! Andrwsc 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try. :)
  • {{fb|IRE}}, for 1882–1922. Ireland has not yet been partitioned. The text is "Ireland", we link to Ireland national football team (IFA) and we use the saltire. No argument there, hopefully!
  • {{fb|IRL|Irish Free State}}, for 1922–1936. Controlled by the FAIFS (which later becomes the FAI). Does not take players from Northern Ireland, so we use the tricolour. The text is "Irish Free State". We link to Republic of Ireland national football team.
  • {{fb|IRL}}, for 1950–present. Controlled by the FAI. Does not take players from Northern Ireland, so we use the tricolour. The text is "Republic of Ireland". We link to Republic of Ireland national football team.
  • {{fb|NIR}}, for 1950–present. Controlled by the IFA. Does not take players from the Republic of Ireland, so we use the Ulster Banner. The text is "Northern Ireland". We link to Northern Ireland national football team.
Then it gets tricky:
  • {{fb|IRE}}, again, for 1922–1936. Takes players from both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, but is controlled by Northern Ireland's football assocation (IFA). The text is "Ireland". It is the only all-Ireland team during this period.
  • {{fb|IRE|FAI}}, for 1936–1950. Takes players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but is controlled by the Republic of Ireland's football assocation (FAI). We use the tricolour only to distinguish this from the IFA team. The text is "Ireland (FAI)". We link to Ireland national football team (FAI).
  • {{fb|IRE|IFA}}, for 1936–1950. Takes players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but is controlled by Northern Ireland's football assocation (IFA). We currently use the saltire, because this was an all-Ireland team, but this contradicts the reasoning used for the FAI team during the same period. The text is "Ireland (IFA)". In theory, this is the thing same as {{fb|IRE}} – but we now need to distinguish this from the FIA team. We link to Ireland national football team (IFA).
That's a slight simplification. (The FAI was established ~1920, then renamed to the FAIFS in ~1922, then renamed back to the FAI ~1936.) I hope that's a little clearer! —StuartBrady (Talk) 20:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh – I should answer the questions you actually asked:
  • {{fb|IRE|IFA}}, producing   Ireland
    • Q. Should we have different flag variants here?
      • A. We certainly need the saltire for {{fb|IRE}} (prior to 1922). From 1922–1936, it's the only all-Ireland team, so it still makes sense to use the Saltire. From 1936–1950, we now need to distinguish between the two all Ireland teams, so this is when we need to use {{fb|IRE|IFA}} instead of {{fb|IRE}}.
    • Q. Is this the one you want to use the Ulster Banner for, some of the time?
      • A. Yes, but only to better distinguish this from the FAI team, during the period in which both teams represented all-Ireland.
  • {{fb|IRE|FAI}}, producing   Ireland
    • Q. Does this article also need multiple flag variants?
      • A. As far as I can see, no.
    • Q. If it should only ever use one flag, which one - the tricolour (as is now used within the article) or the saltire?
      • A. I don't mind, but I would choose the tricolour so as to distinguish it from the IFA team. Whatever is done for the FAI team should also be done for the IFA team for 1936–1950. —StuartBrady (Talk) 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(pre edit conflict message) Alright then! Thanks for that. I would conclude the following from your explanation:
  1. no action required for the first four (pre-existing) template calls
  2. no action required for "tricky #1" (pre-existing template usage)
  3. no additional action required for "tricky #2", after today's addition of the FAI variant
  4. some potential action required for "tricky #3". The wikilink and display text for the new IFA variant is appropriate, but the flag could (should?) be the Ulster Banner instead of the saltire.
Who should decide on this last action item? It seems like this discussion ought to have been somewhere else first, like WP:FOOTBALL. It certainly is easy enough to change flag alias-IFA inside Template:Country data Ireland, and I think everything else is working properly.
The other comment related to this is that if we go ahead and use the Ulster Banner for the IFA flag variant, then we ought to take a look at all the {{fb|NIR}} instances for 1936-1950 (as I am sure there are some) and replace with {{fb|IRE|IFA}}. Andrwsc 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(post edit conflict messaage) Ok, so I will update the IFA variant as I see the logic and symmetry in your approach. Andrwsc 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, only "tricky #3" required action. WP:FOOTBALL should probably decide – I didn't realise just how complicated the situation was when I first asked. Yes, we probably should replace instances of {{fb|NIR}} for 1936–1950 (assuming the IFA didn't also field any Northern Ireland-only teams). Thanks! —StuartBrady (Talk) 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
One slight clarification – when I said "1950", I should have said ~1954. (Although the IFA team continued playing under the name "Ireland" in home nations games until the 1970s.) —StuartBrady (Talk) 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to revert to the saltire for the "tricky #3" situation (see my talk page) as it was claimed that the IFA used that flag (as a "unionist" flag) in parallel with the FAI team using the tricolour as a "nationalist" flag. I'm no expert here, but I honored the request to revert. We should probably continue this discussion somewhere more appropriate! Andrwsc 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the saltire for the IFA would seem correct, then. If I have anything else I need to discuss, I will do so on Template talk:Country data Ireland. —StuartBrady (Talk) 23:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

flagicon|UK or flagicon|GBR

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There's a slight dispute at List of current world boxing champions concerning witch Union Jack flagicon edit to use (yes, I know it's the same result - Union Jack). I'm pushing for UK or United Kingdom (which includes Northern Ireland), other want GBR or Great Britain (which excludes Northern Ireland). When I made these minor changes, I never expected to be disputed or reverted, having figured it would accepted if a British boxer's full nationality was represented. GoodDay 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GBR is a standard 3-letter abbreviation for the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland), it is used by both the IOC and ISO, and it really doesn't matter whether {{flagicon|UK}}, {{flagicon|GBR}} or even {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} is used in the code, as they all mean the same thing and they all produce the same thing. - MTC 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've given up the dispute, though GBR/Great Britain is incorrect (as it excludes Northern Ireland). I must admit, I was surprised by the reaction to my edits at that article (because it still showed the Union Jack). Obviously, politics and sports don't mix. GoodDay 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you think "GBR" excludes Northern Ireland. GBR is the IOC country code, and N.I. athletes are welcome to compete for "Team GB" (actually, they have a choice to compete for IRL if they want). GBR is also the ISO country code for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You might wish that ISO chose a different three letter acronym that includes a "U" and a "K", but GBR is what they chose. Andrwsc 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I was naively unaware of IOC and ISO codes. My changes from GBR to UK were made with good intentions. If anyone even wishs to restore those British boxers as English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish boxers, I'm not going to dispute that either. Sorry for raising a stink, it wasn't what I wanted or expected. GoodDay 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sortable version of flagicon

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm making a new list and trying to make the nationality sortable, but {{flagicon}} isn't sortable. Though, {{flag}} is. I wouldn't mind using {{flag}} except it displays the name of the country next to the flag...which I do not want because of the space it can take up. Are there any sortable flag templates that do not show the name of the country next to it? Or am I going to just deal with one or the other? BsroiaadnTalk 23:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the behaviour might have recently changed. When used in a sortable table, the sort string used to be the alt attribute of the flag image, which is usually "Flag of Nation", and therefore, sortable by nation name. I'd check on Bugzilla perhaps to see if the sortable code changed, and in the meantime, perhaps use something like {{sort}} as an interim fix, as below. Andrwsc 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Flag icon With sort key Just a number Another number
    2 3
    1 4
    3 1
    4 2
Thank you very much. BsroiaadnTalk 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken implementation - help

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the template {{Country data Paraná}} is broken, and braking other pages along the way, as you can see in TRIP Linhas Aéreas#Services, and in List of town tramway systems in Brazil#.C2.A0Paraíba. perhaps the double noinclude is to blame?--Ben Stone 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  Fixed The second noinclude section had an embedded line break, which I removed. Andrwsc 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish flag with and without Coat of Arms

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The default flag that comes up with the flag code is the newer version with the coat of arms. The template for the Polish flag has the original 1919 flag displayed in the upper right, but all the examples are of the new version. How do I produce the flag without the arms? Askari Mark (Talk) 05:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  Fixed It seemed to be a problem with the image on Commons, so I purged the cache. The template looks correct now. {{flagicon|Poland}} results in  , and {{flagicon|Poland|state}} results in  . Andrwsc 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrew ... but both examples still appear with the coa on my screen. A potential problem with Explorer? Askari Mark (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe try the instructions in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for your browser and see if that fixes it. Andrwsc 05:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, having shut it down last night and started it back up today seems to have done the trick as well, since there's now a difference between the two flags. Thanks! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tables containing flagicons seem to be broken

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

See List of countries by population and even the "Sortable version of flagicon" section above. Columns after the flag icon are showing the table format characters, like :

|| 6,671,226,000|| July 1, 2007|| 100%||style="font-size: 75%"| UN estimate

William Avery (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:East718 has added {{pp-template}} to all(?) of the 893 country data templates, added a line break to each of them. I am quickly trying to repair all this damage as quickly as I can. Andrwsc (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about this, and have worked with Andrwsc to repair the damage. Although this was in good faith, it is just another mistake in a long series for me recently, and I'm going to go back to my indefinite hiatus. east.718 at 20:54, December 12, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain template

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There is a small problem at Template:GBR2. The template currently links to Great Britain, which is an article about the island not the country. ("Britain" is a disambiguation page and not to be linked to.) Since the template seems to be used exclusively in articles about athletes, identifying the country for which they compete or competed, the template should link to United Kingdom, either directly, or piped under "UK." Could an administrator please make the change? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The template correctly links to United Kingdom, but the display text is "Great Britain", just as if the wikilink was written as [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]]. This is already the desired result. – Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. My apologies. However, I still think the text should read "United Kingdom," "UK," or possibly (distant third) "Britain." There's been a fair amount of discussion in settling on certain country names and the current consensus, as I understand it, is to call the country by one of those three names and to call the island "Great Britain." See Charles Holland (cyclist) for the internal conflicts this creates.
As an aside, someone may want to create a version of this template that pipes to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to use on pages for athletes competing before 1927. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you want "United Kingdom", use Template:UK or Template:GBR. Template:GBR2 (with the "2") is an alternative version specifically intended for situations like you mention, for athletes who compete for the UK's Olympic team, which is known as "Great Britain". This may not be the most geographically or politically accurate name, but it is still the name used by the International Olympic Committee and the British Olympic Association. (Actually, the BOA website uses "Team GB" more than anything else, and also frequently uses "Britain" and "British" in prose text.) Therefore, using {{GBR2}} in Olympic medal boxes is far more appropriate than {{UK}}. However, I would certainly question and/or replace the use of {{GBR2}} for any non-sporting reference, if you come across any of those. The other alternative for you is {{flagIOC|GBR}}, which creates a wikilink to Great Britain at the Olympics, which you might consider to be a better target article than United Kingdom for those Olympic-related medal boxes. – Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Country data Yugoslavia

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Country data Yugoslavia links to Serbia for its tennis alias for some reason. Even though Yugoslavia Davis Cup team and Yugoslavia Fed Cup team both exist, the page is linking the tennis templates to the Serbian versions. Could somebody fix this? --Thewanderer (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done. I think the intent behind the tennis alias in the template was because the two Yugoslavia pages are disambiguation pages, and ought to be avoided from internal links. – Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Country date Iraq

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can somebody please update it with the new Iraq flag? I want to put 2008 for the year, but its not set up yet. Chaldean (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? You've only provided a redlink for context. – Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
You took care of it already, thank you. Chaldean (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template/Archive_2&oldid=1117790376"