WikiProject iconEurope Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Flags in template[edit]

Discussion copied from User talk:Timbouctou

Okay, got a rationale? Mine is that people are visual creatures, and there's no reason not to have flags. Q·L·1968 22:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a rationale, is it? Because otherwise Wikipedia would be a picture book. And no, the flags are not helpful - at that size most of those flags are so miniscule they are not recognizable, even if we assume that readers actually know what flags waved by various nationalists look like (which they don't). Which is the reason why the great majority of templates listing actual countries do not use flags, and neither do templates with political parties, former countries, administrative subdivisions, capitals, etc. So, got a rationale as to why this template is the exception? Timbouctou (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A template is a navigational aid, not an encyclopedia, so your picture book claim is a straw man. I can't tell you why templates listing independent countries generally don't use flags on Wikipedia. First, is that so? Second, is there a reason for that? I've never been aware that there was such a reason, if there is one; to my knowledge, we've had them on the EU template in Interlingua since 2007, and I doubt this is the only such case. The 'minuscule' flags are perfectly identifiable in most cases (the Veneto being one exception), and they add a visual confirmation of the verbal cue, much like the flags do on the pages that give most any sports team's roster (here's an arbitrary example). I didn't put the flags in that template; I just saw they were there, and added non-breaking spaces. I guess I just don't understand the impulse to remove stuff that isn't in the way, looks kind of nice, and adds a visual enhancement to what otherwise is just words on the screen. Q·L·1968 18:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt flags are a navigational aid, especially when used in templates, as the great majority of readers are unlikely to be guided by flags as oppopsed to words when clicking through. A case in point are football templates and infoboxes, of which we have thousands and which never use flagicons - flags indeed are used in rosters, but rosters only. But again, the plethora of templates where flags could be used but aren't probably establishes a convention. So the burden would be on you to argue why that established convention shouldn't apply. Timbouctou (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the burden should really be on you to justify removing something that a user found good and useful to add (a user who, again, was not me). However, in the interest of moving this discussion towards a conclusion, I've hunted around for something in the manual of style that should be relevant. Before I read it, I actually was more prepared to concede the point at issue. While I find nothing there directly about navigational templates, I do find that "flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". The subject here is about nationality (nationalism). Conversely, we are directed not to "use subnational flags without direct relevance"; but clearly there is direct relevance here. Here's a fictional, but plausible example of the usefulness of such flags as a navigational aid: István has recently moved to Barcelona, and during a march in favour of Catalan independence, he notices a black-and-white flag he doesn't recognize. István reads the Wikipedia article on Catalan nationalism, trying to figure out what this is all about. He gets to the bottom of the page, and hey, there's that flag again. ‘Oh, Breton nationalism—those people at the march must have been from Brittany,’ he thinks. He follows the link, looking around for whatever parallels (or differences) there might be between Catalan and Breton nationalism. This kind of thing happens all the time: Basque nationalists show up in solidarity with Corsican nationalists, and so on and so forth.
Anyway, if you don't find this argument plausible, it's not worth edit-warring about. I would suggest that we copy this discussion over to the template talk page for future reference, however. Q·L·1968 16:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having heard no objection from User:Timbouctou since 21 August, I propose to reinstate the flags since I do think they're visually useful and relevant. If s/he reverts me again, I won't reciprocate. Q·L·1968 18:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Flag of Ilirida[edit]

@Local hero:

I believe this fits into 'Usage by other sources' of Based on a simple Google search it does not seem like a 'made-up flag'

Let me know what you think. --James Richards (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The results there are commons uploads by two users (very likely to be the same individual from what I can remember) and two tweets. So yea... still not acceptable, to say the least. --Local hero talk 02:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see where you are coming from, and I withdraw my ticket for this talk. Have a nice day. --James Richards (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]