Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

Why is this a rule when it is so common on other Wikipedias? "they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many" who ever claimed this? I find it very useful to be able to scan with my eyes and recongnize nationality quickly over actually reading the names, which can blend in with all the other text and become undiscernible. Blockhaj (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Flags also makes the infobox way more colorful and fun to look at.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You'd have to get a consensus of editors to change it. I do recall way back when one person added it. There was no conversation or debate... it was simply thrown in by an editor. Since it didn't get challenged till months later it was somehow a done deal. It was quite strange. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. Some infoboxes get flooded with flags and it can be quite distracting. There are exceptions for military and sports that use the icon in most sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I mainly wanna use it for articles regarding weapoons, vehicles and such. Can such be grouped with military? Blockhaj (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd discuss it at Wikiproject Military as I'm not up with all the protocols they have for infoboxes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Blockhaj, as far as I remember the convention is battles yes, ships yes, weapons and other vehicles no. The logic is that armies fight (or maybe fought) battles under a flag, and represent nations or other entities that have a flag. Ships fly a flag. Weapons are often associated with many countries and the flags become distracting clutter. Fyunck(click), that isn't quite how I remember it. I thought it was a very long series of conversations to achieve the consensus we have on flags in infoboxes. I'm not sure how long you've been around but I can remember when our article on U2 (the band) had a little Irish flag and folk used to argue about it because two of the band were from England. Something like that. Flags seem to bring out the worst in people and it's a whole area of strife we used to have that I don't miss. Apologies for the long reply, and apologies if I've misremembered events from 15 years ago. John (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click) just making sure you get the ping. Mistyped your name. Sorry again. John (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possible. But I've been here twenty years and when it was added I didn't notice for like three months. No one could point me to the conversation that added "they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many." It simply got added with no rfc at all. I didn't even see a discussion amongst wikipedia editors... perhaps on someones talk page among five people. That is what I recall. And they also tried soon thereafter to remove the flags for international sports events, but Tennis project, Auto Racing project, etc... raised a major stink about it and that discussion led to international sports being protected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I was forwarded to MOS:MILFLAGS (god English wiki is cluttered), and it doesnt have a proper answer to my question. Do i want flags cuz they are decorative? Yes. But i also want them cuz i have ADHD (or whatever they call it this week), meaning i see details first and the full picture later. In short, flags help my eyes navigate and find useful information much faster. Blockhaj (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be brought up under Wikipedia Accessibility issues? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead the way. Blockhaj (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

But you should definitely read the 19 pages of archived discussion linked from the top of this page first. John (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Ye no. Blockhaj (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFL § Flag icons for international games

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFL § Flag icons for international games. Left guide (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and Palestine Action

Is it appropriate to use a flag icon in the infobox of the article about Palestine Action? I removed it per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but it was reinstated by Genabab with this edit. Khiikiat (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Khiikiat I would argue it is, since most terrorist groups feature a flag in their "designated by" section Genabab (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Genabab: What is the point of the flag icon? How does it help the reader? In the examples you have cited, multiple countries are listed. In the case of Palestine Action, there is only one country. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG provides a link to MOS:MILFLAGS, and I think the guidance given there is helpful: Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not. Khiikiat (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

> What is the point of the flag icon?

I suppose it would be the same point as using a flag in any other context like this.

I would point out that with RAF, only Germany considered them terrorists. Just one country there, and the flag was used. So there is precedence for this. Genabab (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That "other stuff exists" is not a good argument. I also do not see a good reason for including the flag icon. It appears to me to be purely decorative. Donald Albury 23:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Donald Albury Could I ask what would make it not decorative? Genabab (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

"Decorative" in this case that it does not serve any purpose other than adding a bit of color to the page. The label "United Kingdom" does a much better job of conveying the name of the country than a miniature union jack does. The flag icon is superfluous, and therefore decorative. Donald Albury 00:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• No, it is redundant and purely decorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Flags in Template:Infobox settlement

It is appropriate to use a flag icon in Template:Infobox settlement about cities and towns (e.g. Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name). So CambridgeBayWeather removed flags from infoboxes ([1], [2], [3]) for Montreal per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. But Alansohn continued reinstating flags ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) for New York City, because its merely decorative. Absolutiva 06:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG specifically permits their use in this context: "Human geographic articles – for example, settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." New York City, Manhattan (an article about one of the five Boroughs of New York City) and Montreal are all settlements and administrative subdivisions that are clearly covered by this portion of the Manual of Style. For Manhattan and New York City, the country is the United States and the first-level administrative subdivision is New York (state), while that would be Canada and Quebec for Montreal. See this edit, for an example of where flags were removed for city and borough, which are the second and third level subdivisions and are excluded by MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. In every case where I have added or removed such flags, I have always referenced the precise section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons that explicitly permits their use for county and first-level subdivision only, along with a concise quotation of the MOS demonstrating that fact. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

However, it's not mandatory as seen by the use of the word may. In most cases the flag provides no encyclopedic content and is just decoration, worse on mobile devices. For example neither of the flags at Montreal link to the articles, Flag of Canada or Flag of Quebec. The template {{flagof}} links to the flags article as in Canada or Canada ({{flagof|size=23×15px|Canada}}) to match the plain {{flag}} template. Also the plain flag template violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked in that the country is linked so {{flagu}} as in Canada would be correct.

However, it's not mandatory to use flags but they should at least comply with the MOS. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Any questions about removing flags from other cities around the world, mostly cities in Canada, Germany, Russia, etc. does not have flags at all. Absolutiva 22:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I tend to remove them when making other edits for any countries but I don't specifically look for articles. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The guidance is to generally deprecate flags and states: Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. The exception for Human geographic articles was added here in March 2012 following this discussion. The exception for military conflicts is clarified at MOS:MILFLAGS in respect to how they can be used to convey additional info. Where there are only two combatants in a conflict, there is no case for them conveying additional info and they should not be used. In the case of New York City, there is no additional information being conveyed either. The guidance tells us the name must appear next to the flag on first occurrence and, as a consequence, the flag is redundant (it conveys no additional information). MOS:NOICONS states: Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. This follows from the more general guidance for images at MOS:IMAGEREL: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Their use here is purely decorative. We should consider whether to retain this exception, given that it is at odds with the more general guidance herein and higher level guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)