This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
As noted in the edit summaries, I do not believe unconfirmed referendums should appear in these templates. There are many referendums which are proposed (e.g. United Kingdom European Constitution referendum) but never happen, and the one in question here is neither confirmed, nor likely to actually happen according to the article itself. If it is confirmed, then it should be added as a definite future event. Until then, it is merely WP:CRYSTAL balling, as to have it in the template suggests that it will occur (and yes, you can get around this with a footnote, but currently it is only a bill, not an actual referendum). пﮟოьεԻ57 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I absolutely see no point in removing it, and despair at the idea that this is in any way an improvement. Anyone would think with the above comments that referendums were proposed all the time, which is hardly true at all. As for having it in the template suggests it will occur, that is pretty much the whole point of having it in the template, and wp:crystal says nothing about not doing that at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"As for having it in the template suggests it will occur, that is pretty much the whole point of having it in the template". This doesn't make any sense to me - you can't put it in the template in order to suggest it will occur. It either will or it won't. Currently it hasn't been confirmed, so there is no justification to put it in there. пﮟოьεԻ57 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You tell me where it says I can't use this template to suggest it might occur? The fact is, it is a scheduled bill of the sitting government, this is not some pie in the sky speculation. You are utterly wrong if you think wp:crystal has anything to do with it, so we are left with your personal view as to whether government proposed referendums are so regular and so unimportant occurances in Scotland, that a link to it cannot take up valuable whitespace in this template, which is ostensibly only here to do the valuable and important job of organising a whole six articles about actual elections for the benefit of interested readers, who presumably would never be similarly interested in the existence of such piffling things like a proposed referendum bill. I find your opposition totally dogmatic, and without any befenefit to the reader in the slightest, especially when there are a hundred different ways that its status as a proposal could be highlighted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you've made the point though, that this is a bill. This template is not for bills, it is for scheduled elections and referendums, and currently there is no scheduled referendum. пﮟოьεԻ57 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said everything above with full consideration of the difference between a bill and a referendum. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the little flag for? It looks awfully like flagcruft to me...--John (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed it again. Please don't restore it unless there is an actual reason to do so. Using flags as decoration is deprecated on Wikipedia. --John (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As brought up during our last discussion, this has been discussed before, and there was no consensus to remove them as in several cases there is more than one template on the page and it is a useful navigation aid. Unfortunately I cannot find the discussion, so I suggest you bring the matter up at WP:Elections and referendums rather than remove the flags from a handful of the 200+ templates, which just means there are inconsistent formatting across the series. Number57 21:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You bring it up if you want to diverge from MoS guidance. --John (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you need to bring it up if you want consensus to change what's here. Number57 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, MoS embodies a robust consensus of the project editors. As it is you who wish to go against the consensus it is for you to demonstrate that the little flag has some special quality that makes it useful on these templates. Otherwise they will just be removed again. --John (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
icons should still have an encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose
The icons here serve to distinguish between different templates when they are on the same article. Why will you not discuss the matter at WP:Elections and referendums, as it affects over 200 templates? Number57 22:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flags fail the manual of style, and are a key part of this template's bizarre pretence that many of these elections were Scottish, rather than British. There is obviously no consensus for this. bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are Scottish elections, they only take place in Scotland. Are you suggest that they are all renamed? But anyway, the guideline states that flags can be useful visual aids and are allowed where appropriate - there is no outright ban. As these have been on the template for several years, you will need to seek consensus to remove them. As before, I suggest raising this at a more appropriate venue (as this affects 200+ templates). Thanks, Number57 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps there has been some confusion.
1. "Consensus" is not a special task required of anybody who disagrees with you. We already have policies and guidelines with which the flags are incompatible; we already have multiple editors whom you reflexively revert. "Consensus" is not the problem here.
2. Just because something has been broken for years does not entitle you to repeatedly revert those who fix it.
3. This change affects one template. One template; this one. I cannot see any sane reason why hundreds of other templates must be changed in lockstep, unless of course they all have a similar problem which needs to be fixed. You haven't said which ones, but I'm trying to fix this problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has been no confusion, and the statement that "We already have policies and guidelines with which the flags are incompatible" is simply wrong. WP:MOSICON allows flags to be used in many circumstances and is not a blanket ban on their usage. I am arguing that the guideline prescribes their use here. Your interpretation is different. This being the case, wider discussion is merited. Number57 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidently, several editors disagree with your rather unusual interpretation. Of course, you've reverted them all, but hammering the revert button is not a substitute for following guidelines, and it's not a substitute for consensus. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, several editors disagree with my interpretation, but other editors do agree. We have had at least two RFCs on this issue (here and here), with neither resulting in a consensus to remove them. By all means start a third if you want to discuss the topic again, but please respect the results of the discussions so far. Thanks, Number57 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of those RfCs shows a consensus to add flagicons. And in any case Global consensus trumps local consensus. But it doesn't matter what policy says, and it doesn't matter what other editors prefer; only one thing determines the state of this template - you always revert. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the discussions weren't about adding the flags - they were there already - there was no consensus either way, so the status quo remained. The global vs local consensus is irrelevant, as the issue here is our respective interpretations of the guideline, not the fact that the guideline is relevant or not; I think it's perfectly within the rules to have the flag (as I've explained every time it's been discussed), and you don't. Number57 20:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still edit warring these silly flags in, Number 57? You should be ashamed of yourself. --John (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John is right. But Number 57 continues to automatically revert any attempt to bring this article in line with the manual of style. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've repeatedly pointed out, this issue has been discussed multiple times, and there has never been a consensus to remove the flag. IMO the template is in line with the MOS – I even quoted it above. My question is why you two repeatedly return to make the same edits again and again despite never having gained the consensus to do so? Number57 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need consensus to remove it (though such a consensus exists as WP:MOSFLAG) but you do need a consensus to restore it. You have previously stated that you think it is good to educate people about flags, and that you worry that some people may not be able to comfortably read words like the names of countries and that the flag will assist them. I don't follow such arguments and I don't think the project does. Are there better ones? --John (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, you do need a consensus to remove it. Secondly, consensus does not exist at WP:MOSFLAG – there is nothing there that says flags cannot be used on templates. In fact I have already quoted a part of MOSFLAG above that justifies the inclusion of flags here, i.e. that they should... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. I have repeatedly pointed out that they are useful visual navigation clues in cases where there is more than one election template on an article. Number57 20:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do we need a consensus to remove it when there is a more general consensus to remove flags in cases like this? And yes, as I mentioned I am aware that you think there are people who will struggle to read country names unless there is a little flag beside it. --John (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there isn't "a more general consensus to remove flags in cases like this". Number57 20:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is. It's at WP:MOSFLAG. Stop this tendentious editing.
There's an obvious fallacy here: Number 57 disagrees with other editors → "There's no consensus" → Number 57 can impose their will regardless of what others say. bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(a) MOSFLAG does not say flags have to be removed and (b) I'm not the only person who has defended their inclusion (see examples from previous discussions [1][2][3][4][5]). Number57 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not a bureaucracy. Tell us again what you think the flags are for. If you think there is a consensus to use them this way, link to where it was achieved. --John (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: Visual cue. The flag has been on this template since it was created – the onus is on the person proposing the change (i.e. its removal) to gain a consensus or show how a guideline is applicable. Number57 15:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for answering the first question. You didn't answer If you think there is a consensus to use them this way, link to where it was achieved and I think that is crucial. Can you please try, or if you do not know of any such consensus, can you please say so? --John (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you are well aware, we have had two RFCs and numerous other discussions on this topic, none of which have ever resulted in a consensus to remove the flags. If you know otherwise, please link to where it was achieved. If not, then please start a new one and stop this circular reasoning. Number57 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your honesty in not pretending that there is any consensus for the usage that you wish to retain. If you have no further evidence, I'd say we are done here. --John (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no consensus to make the changes you want – that's what matters here. Unless you can provide evidence that there is consensus for removing them, then there will be no change to the status quo. Number57 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
