Proposal: Add the following to the section § Do not rewrite history:
Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag.

That should resolve the issue, and any others like this I can imagine (e.g. in a House of Lords vote table; I won't give further examples for WP:BEANS reasons).

@Srnec, RandomCanadian, Thewolfchild, GraemeLeggett, Urselius, Dragovit, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, Chipmunkdavis, Nigel Ish, Kirill Lokshin, Buidhe, and The ed17: pinging all partcipants in the original discussion.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - unfortunate that this bit of rule creep is necessary, but apparently it is. Parsecboy (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This change seems beneficial. It's clearly what the guideline already intends to convey. If it's being challenged on the grounds of ambiguously-written MOS, we should add this short clarification. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Decorative and serves no useful identification purpose. But I think it should be added to either the 'In some military history contexts' section or the 'Avoid flag icons in infoboxes' section. Also, I would support a broader guideline that prevents the use of icons that are too small or unknown to be useful in all circumstances: Do not use the coat of arms of a person as an icon. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looking through, for example, Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Europe it seems that use of coats of arms, standards and the like in infoboxes is commoner that you might think, and that many of them will be unrecognisable to the vast majority of readers even if not rendered at impossibly small size. There may be a few exceptions where the non-flag symbols may be more well known (such as the Wars of the Roses - the Yorkist and Lancastrian roses are relatively well known - although even there it is arguably an anachronism and the less said about the mess of commander's flags and symbols lower down in the infobox the better), but these situations will be few and if necessary they can be discussed separately.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for all the reasons at the previous discussion on WT:MILHIST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If , without it, multiple editors are arguing for the improper inclusion of COAs this way, then the language should be fixed to explicitly disallow this. --Masem (t) 13:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all of the above. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not recognizable to the average editor, serves zero identifying purpose. (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as reflective of an already existing consensus. Srnec (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support they serve no useful purpose in supplying additional information, also some articles with many combatants look like Christmas trees, they are so highly decorated with colourful clutter. Urselius (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagreement - despite any of your decision / recommendation, many users still adding or returning flags, insignias, coats of arms and others as icons to infoboxes, because it's the common majority style of the whole Wiki and flag icons are not just decorative, their opinion about it is probably different. Likewise, I spent several years adding or replacing them to make their use accurate as possible, which took a lot of time and work to be reversed with one click and than to learn from you that it was just decorative and a waste of time, which I disagree with. Some states have existed for a thousand years and without these it is impossible to recognize it, which historical period or dynasty it is, that's you didn't consider at all. I don't think that's true that coat of arms of a person stand-in for a national etc should not be used, because in the Middle Ages the most country was identified by its ruler and his dynasty, so its coat of arms and royal banner didn't belong only to the person, but it also applied to the country in which he ruled and it's significant as national flags. Understanding of medieval symbolism according to modern times is wrong. Coats of arms, royal banners, emblems, standards etc shows which ruler and dynasty ruled and at what historical period the state was. It is not clear in which articles and in which historical periods it is appropriate to use them and in which ones not. No recommendation or comment can solve the absence of clear rules. I presume that you only dealt with the resolution of icons in terms of their recognition and came to the conclusion that they have only a decorative purpose, but unfortunately you no longer dealt with a feature that you can open and display in full resolution by clicking on the icons, which is the way I normally use like all articles's images. You have rejected this feature, that without icons there is nothing to open and view, so the articles become less usable for me. You also didn't look in more detail at other my arguments in WikiProject Military history without trying to solve them and took the identical stance as my opponents, so I can't be satisfied with this. Unfortunately, your conclusion is written in favor of people who do nothing more than revert the edits of other users. This includes a number of articles for which it was difficult to find coats of arms and flags on Wikimedia Commons, which took a long time, than was reversed by someone by one click. I consider it a disrespect for someone's work and the time they spent. It's not only about adding flag icons, but also making templates and edits on Wikimedia Commons which took many hours. If I knew it was all useless, I would spend my time in a better way. Dragovit (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t personalize this dispute. It’s not helpful, and the editors in the above discussion do a lot more than “revert the edits of others”. Arguing with the sunk cost fallacy is not going to help either. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So ignore these aspects and focus on the essentials that are being overlooked. The discussions too often focuses on irrelevant things and does not pay attention to the essentials. Dragovit (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should accept that the consensus is against you; and avoid making comments as long as the first one here, which (especially in stark contrast to the other very brief ones) looks quite like WP:BLUDGEON. We've heard you, we disagree, that is not a reason to say that we have ignored or haven't understood you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This consensus is not just against me, but as I said it's also against many other people who do the same edits as me, so it's anti-systematic when deciding on something that working for a long time and has proven itself even if you say the opposite. In fact all arguments against the use of flag icons are only opinions based on feelings and are debatable, because they are not based on anything demonstrable, like the interest of someone's eyesight, which is completely absurd (if somebody doesn't see the flag icons, then apparently can't even read the text), or the question of whether they are useful, which they are for me because I orient myself in them (not everyone confuses the medieval flag of France with the flag of Quebec as you might think). My thesis that you bypassed my arguments to avoid solving them is also a fact. Your consensus does not bother me as you propably think because it has minimal effect. As far as I know, you changed just four articles to your liking, that's all you've accomplished. Almost nothing has changed. You have no diligence to change the rest (99 % other whole articles), that's the difference between us. Dragovit (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are saying that inclusion of coat-of-arms icons to represent leaders in a military campaign do not enhance the encyclopedia, and are actually a hindrance to a clear presentation of events. - Donald Albury 00:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's just a different opinion. For me the absence of coats of arms or flags makes it difficult to orientate in infoboxes and information there. These symbols convey additional information about states and persons, their nationality, dynasty or military service. It's clearly a positive feature that motivates many users to use the flag icons or coats of arms. This is also the reason why Templates country datas were created, if it were forbidden, it would not be possible to use them, also editing in them would be useless. The Manual of Style/Icons#Flags doesn't completely prohibit them, but says how to use them properly. If someone intentionally removes flag icons, he/she doesn't do it on the basis of some rules, but on the basis of his own ideas or interpretation of the rules. Dragovit (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimacy and empowerment to change articles comes from consensus. Fundamentally, Wikipedia works on consensus between editors, there is no effective way of it being operated by any other process. If you gave this any thought you would realise this fact. However much you think that you are in the right, whatever the number of arguments you muster to vindicate your viewpoint, you have no ability to go against a consensus of the editors who have expressed an opinion on the subject being debated. Urselius (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't deny the purpose of consensus, but the way it was achieved. It is often seen how the discussion is diverted to trivialities without arguments concerning essentials being resolved. Not only were the arguments not properly discussed, but many of the users who voted did not even take part in the discussion. No need to explain to me what consensus means, but I'm not sure of its impartiality and its credibility. We are talking here about common practices that I have been doing from the beginning, which is about more than ten years, not just mine, so it deserves more thorough attention and something more official than one consensus made by several users who noticed it. For now, I consider it binding what is written in the Manual of Style/Icons#Flags. Nowhere is it written that it is recommended or ordered to remove the flag icons, but it says how to use them properly. If someone intentionally removes flag icons, he/she doesn't do it on the basis of some rules, but on the basis of his own ideas or interpretation of the rules. Dragovit (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragovit:, please observe the guidelines in WP:TALK#REVISE regarding modifying or adding to your comments on a talk page. I will also note that inserting the same statement multiple times into previous comments is over-doing it. - Donald Albury 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury: Thanks for the notice, but there is a serious reason for this, because the same topic is being addressed to several users and it would be inappropriate to write something different for everyone, or leave it unanswered, which would mean not continuing. I take note, of course, but please do not complicate the issue by these details, which do not affect the resolution of this matter, it only increases the content, which ceases to be clear. Dragovit (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per the various arguments given already. I see no use in including coat-of-arms icons as stand-ins for flags. - Donald Albury 00:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was initially apathetic to this issue, but the arguments in favor of formalizing the same restrictions on coats of arms are good and the behavior of the coat of arms proponent has only demonstrated to me the necessity that these restrictions are put in place. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you are partly influenced by personal attitudes and sympathies, which isn't appropriate. Surely you are aware of the seriousness of this issue. We are talking about practice here that is being commonly practiced for decades in hundreds (or more) of different articles, not just by me, but by many other users, so please don't trivialize it, it's not just about me. For now, I consider it binding what is written in the Manual of Style/Icons#Flags. Nowhere is it written that it is recommended or ordered to remove the flag icons, but it says how to use them properly. If someone intentionally removes flag icons, he/she doesn't do it on the basis of some rules, but on the basis of his own ideas or interpretation of the rules. You may also notice that my English language skills are not perfect, so I would ask for consideration. Dragovit (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should understand it as I find the arguments in favor of restrictions convincing in their reasoning and, secondly, I think the establishment of those restrictions is now necessary by your attempts to insert coats of arms all over the place and post walls of text to explain why. I find your English comprehensible, your language skills are not a part of the problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have inaccurate information. The coats of arms were used regularly long before me for many years, so these "attempts to insert" are not mine, but attempts to keep them, because it was a long development of many users to create images and templates with them. Even the best argument should not deny this development and declare it as "my attempts", because they are not. The restrictions therefore can't be accepted, but also because of ethical principles not to suppress one's freedom just because of your ideas about Wikipedia are different, this is unacceptable. Wikipedia shouldn't look like an antique paper book, which would make it obsolete and old-fashioned. If I want to read an ordinary book, than I won't go to Wikipedia. I go to Wikipedia to organize my knowledge and I need these flag icons and coats of arms for faster and easier orientation in articles. Dragovit (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is supressing anyone's freedoms; I'm not sure quite what you are on about. As has been explained, WP works on consensus, so any one person's views on how an article looks needs to be agreed with others. Many people find these tiny icons distracting / difficult to make out and think that they add no value to the infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet many people return them there repeatedly, because without them, infoboxes are confusing and difficult to navigate. It turned out that apart from the arguments about their size and distracting effect are debatable and impossible to prove, than there are no other arguments against, so these are just few opinions. I have put forward several arguments to show that using icons is useful. On the example of the Kingdom of France, I showed that without the icon it is not clear whether it was Capetian, Valois, Bourbon, Bourbon restoration etc. the title can mean many possibilities, and there are many such examples. Without icons, it's just plain text that becomes too confused when it's too much. It was blown away by the argument that the flag of Valois resembled the flag of Québec, which is ridiculous that one can expect the flag of Québec in an article about the Middle Ages, moreover, the flags are not even similar. The arguments against icons proved trivial and eloquent. It's obvious that anything can be argued although it is completely absurd. Creating images on Commons, flag icons, and flag icon templates has been too laborious, and it is noteworthy that so little was enough to completely remove them from several articles. I understand that, for example, it is not advisable to use them until the 12th century, because the symbols have not yet been codified, but after this period, their rejection is meaningless. For example Infobox former country about Ottoman Empire, where predecessor and successor states without flag icons are confusing. Flag icons could say much more about those states about their statehood, sovereignty etc, their return was repeated here as well and then reverted back by one click based on idea that they are disruptive. Nonsense. At a time when the internet is full of distracting ads, it's ridiculous to write about small icons that are distracting. Other images, which are usually larger, in an articles could also be distracting, so again it's debatable and impossible to prove. Maybe the pile of text without icons is distracting, in which one cannot orient oneself and has to read it in its entirety to find out what needs. Dragovit (talk) 8:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as above. GiantSnowman 10:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The edits go against the spirit and principles of the original discussion. Shouldn't be needed but obviously is. - X201 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others above - particularly Parsecboy. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Firstly, medieval coas are generally not representing states or other entities, but are usually connected to a familiy or a single person. Secondly, such coas are mostly not recognisable in this miniature size, and even those that are, will generally not be well enough known to have any sort of informative value. Thirdly, it is a pity that we have to waste time on this, but if the current text of MOS:FLAGS really can be (mis)used as a pretext for filling infoboxes with useless distractions, we had better close that possibility before even more time is wasted. --T*U (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm neutral with regards to the coats-of-arms, but I feel that there is more wide-spread problem that finally needs to be clamped down. I really don't understand how some of the Wikipedians get terribly offended by as little as one flag icon in the infobox of a biography of sportsperson to show the nationality the person represented in official international competitions and go to no end to try to demonstrate how dramatically distracting these are in such an article, yet on the basis of the "military exception" have no problem at at all with the articles on some military conflicts being filled with up to a hundred flagicons. This attitude is even more impossible to understand given that the latter icons are generated in a purely decorative manner. They are not interactive in any way to confer their meaning. I really feel this utter contradiction in approach should final be done away with and the military exception be clamped down. At the end of the day though, we should not forget that we are dealing with a guideline and that cannot be abused to forbid things. The focus should be on discouraging.Tvx1 17:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I understand where people are coming from, but even the smallest of images is a representation of information. Yes we have issues with WP:ACCESS etc, but I find it strange to remove legitimate information when you can provide it. This consensus is yet to be closed and it seems people are already working to establish it out, which is wrong to do so. The floor has maybe been opened up to others who may also have an opinion because this has been somewhat WP:FORUMSHOPed. So hopefully we can leave this open for others to come and express their opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

• While the above is ongoing, courteously informing the participants that I have brought a specific issue of this to AN, again... (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Bludgeoning_and_refusal_to_listen_on_a_WP:DSTOPICS_subject) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]