 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles | | | NA | This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
|
The purpose of the flag icons on this page is to quickly draw the attention of users to certain nationalities, in a more efficient manner than just listing the names. This is permitted within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons stating: “They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation.“ and “An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function.“ The purpose is navigational function. My proposal would be adding the flags, plus the country names, which would add maximum information and provide for quick ease of navigation. Garuda28 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- But do you look at it and go "yeah, this definitely looks good, what with these distracting flag icons all over the place?" I am especially appalled by the Portuguese flag still lingering on the previous line, completely missing its mark as a visual cue. Jay D'Easy (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Hence my proposal to use
Portugal rather than . Either way, from a navigation perspective it is completely permitted under the MOS - and the flags do draw attention to the specific states in a much quicker manner rather than just using names alone (especially since some states have multiple land forces). UPDATE: Did a preview with that and it makes it much more readable, especially if all forces put in brackets. From a formatting issue that helps. Garuda28 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Go right ahead and apply your changes, I'm curious. Also tell me what you think of ((Armies in Europe)) and ((Military equipment of Europe)) and whether you think they'd look better with arbitrarily decorative flag icons? Though admittedly these examples are less inclusive. Then again, I think that is the example we'll want to follow. This template is too inclusive to actually serve its purpose as a navigational tool. Honestly, I still wonder why this entire template exists. Jay D'Easy (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Done. As for those I don't see a major navigational need as there is just one army listed per country, where as here there are multiple land forces per country within one category, as well as a much larger number, so the flags are not decorative, but primarily for navigation. Per guidance flags should not be used as pure decoration. And I disagree, as NATO land forces are highly integrated and this is a place to organize them into a navbox so that they can be easily linked. Garuda28 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I still don't like how it looks, honestly. Still a couple flags lingering on the line above. I might whip something up in a sandbox that we can hopefully both agree on. Give me some time. Jay D'Easy (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- For sure! Once your done post the link here, please! Garuda28 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
