infobox Flag

Is it possible to have an alternate version with the commonwealth spelling of colour? It seems weird that the flag of Canada has an incorrect (Canadian English) spelling on it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try it out soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone think of a spelling-neutral alternative for "color"? PoccilScript 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could do "Elements" and I can do a brief sum-up, I will have the color information there but not in it's current format. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a rather good idea. Perhaps it will cover patterns as well as colors. PoccilScript 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it will. Here is the example I will use for the Canadian flag article "A red, white, red tricolor with a red maple leaf in the center." For Belarus, it would be "red and green bicolor with the national ornament charged at the hoist." That is how simple most will be. All symbolism of the different parts will be dealt with in the article itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Given this evolution towards using this field for a brief description of the design, would not a better tag than Elements be Design? The intent is no longer just a list of colors or elements used, but these together with how they interrelate; i.e., the design. --ScottMainwaring 05:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I went ahead and made the change. --ScottMainwaring 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, the "Design" section of the infobox is not good in this case, as it is not an option, you must use it, which shouldn't be like that. Also, the design can clearly be seen on the image of the flag, and the design is mentioned in the article. A•N•N•A hi! 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To a vexillologist (like I am), we can tell about said designs. But, the main point of these articles and the infoboxes is to explain what the elements of the flag are. So, with the infobox, it makes it quick. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Scott made the changes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. That's fine. I'm a vexillologist, too. A•N•N•A hi! 22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The layout is fine, but I just think having 2 or more flags in one infobox is pretty huge, especially for many flag articles are just stubs now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But, Zscout370, some countries have several versions of their national flag. Since they are all versions of the national flag, they should all be listed under "Flag of (country)". In other words, to take an example, the civil ensign of Israel is just as much a national flag of Israel as is the one flying over that county's capitol. To be complete, the Flag of Israel article should cover both flags, and the infobox should allow them to be easily compared.
As far as stubs are concerned, are you saying there should be some kind of "stub" version of the infobox, so that it doesn't dwarf the text in the article itself? I'm not following your logic here. I think the solution in the stub case is to lengthen the article text, not to truncate the infobox. --ScottMainwaring 08:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I am having a hard time understanding your definition of "national" flag. When I think of national flag, I always think of the flag that is used for the Olympics, UN, state functions (with a few exceptions, like Taiwan). I know many South American countries have a "government" flag. I consider that to be the state flag (just one notch below national flag). Some of the flags you consider national, are just ensigns that can easily be covered without an infobox (unless it is a case where the national flag is the national ensign, like the United States). I have not taken a look yet at the Israeli article, but I probably won't make any changes there (since I don't have a lot on the Israeli flag at my home). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's how the Dictionary of Vexillology at Flags of the World defines national flag:

• (1) A flag that represents an independent state, especially a nation-state.
• (2) A flag of a formerly independent state or of a non-independent national group (see also ‘tribal flag’)
• (3) That flag which is generally thought of as representing a state when specific circumstances of display are not considered – for example, some flag books might give a plain tricolour with stars as the national flag of Venezuela, whilst others may show the flag with arms [...].
• Please note that in some countries the national flag is available for use by all citizens. In other countries, however, the national flag is restricted to official use by law or custom, with a variant of it as a civil flag for use by private citizens. Please note also, that the national flag may have other variants with specific uses on land and/or sea, and that these are herein listed separately according to type (see also those flags listed under ‘ensign’, as well as ‘civil flag’, ‘jack’, ‘state flag’ and ‘war flag’).

The primary definition, (1), is the one I'm using: a national flag is a flag that represents a nation. A civil flag, government ensign, or war flag are all varieties of national flag in this sense. The tertiary definition, (3), is the one you're using: of the national flags that represent a nation, the one that is used by default (I think this includes "the Olympics, UN, state functions" that you mention). It's from this sense that we can talk of "the national flag of Japan" as if there is only one (the hinomaru) and not three.

I think the present infobox layout (and by extension, scheme for a "Flag of (Country)" article), well represents the situation, in all its complexity: the overall box is titled "Flag of (County)" because all the flags listed within are in fact national flags of that country. However, not all are "created equal" so to speak: they are listed in an order that puts the default flag first. --ScottMainwaring 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am using definition three. One thing I like the infobox is that if you want information to be excluded, then it can be excluded. But I think it should be an article by article case, since it seems what one country would consider their national flag, others might consider a few to be it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
About the infobox itself, I have a concern. In the names section, do you think instead of shifting multiple names from left to right, can you make it where the second name goes below the second name. Even on a 1024x768 pixel monitor, I personally think the infobox used on the Japanese flag article seems to smash all of the lead section together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You can put a
in front of the Morenames value to accomplish this. But that turns out not to help the Japan article; I think the problem is due to ANNAfoxlover's edit to Template:National flag entry increasing the flag size. I think the infobox would look better — especially if it includes multiple flags — with a smaller image width/height for the flag. --ScottMainwaring 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Since most flags are SVG's anyways, we can shrink the size of the box and if users want to see details, they can just click the flag image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a place to move this template to. The title "Infobox national flag" gives the impression that the template is only for national flags. I would move it to "FlagBox", which is currently being used by a template for deletion, but I would like some more simple suggestions. ANNAfoxlover 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My edit here was mistaken as at first glance I thought this edit by ANNAfoxlover had changed the thumbnail size rather than the table size. 240px is fairly standard for infoboxes, though I wouldn't object a higher size such as 300px considering the design parameter value generally takes up several lines. –Pomte 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reduced the line height, so the text fields don't take up so much space. The template width, as it is at the moment, is good. - 52 Pickup 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This template currently places articles in the category "{{{type}}} flags". In general, these are national flags and are places in Category:National flags. However, when the flag is not a national flag, there is often no appropriate category "XXX flags", and the page only belongs in something like "Flags of Australia". I think it would be better to remove the category from the template, and leave categorisation to the normal part of the article. JPD (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wondered whether we really need the word "Infobox" in the template name. Would it not be clearer to have this template at Template:National flag? Green Giant (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have noticed that there are a large number of flag articles using this template for entities which are not nations. Would it not be more appropriate to rename as Template:Infobox flag so that it could become a generic template rather than being restricted to national flags? Green Giant (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help This template is apparently causing an unnecessary line break (or two?) at the beginning of articles where it is transcluded (e.g. Flag of Andalusia.) Can someone please fix this? Post on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to fix it. --fryed-peach (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When there are two flags in the infobox, the 2nd flag does not show, instead a part of the wiki code are shown. See Flag of Norway or Flag of Sweden. Could someone with template knowledge look into it? Thanks. —Helland (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Can you verify? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not found any errors on the pages I've checked. Thanks! —Helland (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be possible to add to the box attributes the html's codes for the colors, as #00FF00, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.152.78 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is {{FIAV}} incorporated into this template's usage at articles like Flag of Iowa? The usage symbols are exceedingly cryptic and add nothing to the information in the infobox. I suggest that they be removed from the infobox. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

... anyone? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I've removed it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

When multiple flags are used within the same template, it automatically applies the caption "Variant flag of {Article|} {Name|}". This should not be done, as multiple flags may be used that are not necessarily variant flags For example Flag of Seychelles has two additional flags in the infobox that are clearly not variants, but former flags. I think this text should be removed and not automatically and possibly incorrectly caption image2 and so on, but obviously there may be some pages where it's desired. What do others think? Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

At least in the Flag of Peru article (and this looks to be due to the template somehow), the "use" note for the war flag is linked as "War flag" ([[War flag|War]] [[flag]]). the link to the flag article is really rather pointless and the linking of just the word "war" incorrectly implies that there is not an article about war flags but that you will be taken to an article about the concept of war. This linking would much better as simply "War flag" ([[War flag]]). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

These links are at Template:Infobox flag/entry; there are similar double links for every possible value of |use=. I agree links to flag and ensign can be removed, though what should we do with uses like "State and war flag"? "State and war flag", "State and war flag" or even "State flag and war flag"? SiBr₄ (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference would be "State and war flag" as the context of the second link avoids the problems with just linking "war" I noted above. "State flag and war flag" is fine too, but that's a second choice, and while "State and war flag" is very slightly better than at present, I don't think it avoids enough of the issues. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on no objections or alternative proposals, I've made the changes I suggested and improved the grammar while I was at it.[1] I'm more than happy to discuss any of the changes I've made. I've spot checked a few random articles and can't see that I've introduced any errors, but I haven't looked at everything. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we please get {{FIAV}} back into the template? The other-language wikipedias use it in their flag templates, and I believe it adds to the ability to understand the flag's type of use better than is currently available. I would have opposed it's removal in 2012 had I seen Philosopher's request and subsequent action. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fry, agreed. Although I would add that a text description should be added maybe, otherwise if it's just the symbol alone I can see why it was seen as overly cryptic. I'm not sure if that was the case before or not. trackratte (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Both the FIAV symbol and text description is good with me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Currently, it is not clear at first glance that this template is referring to a flag. For example, looking at the UN example on the template page, it looks like an infobox on the UN, since "United Nations" is depicted at the top with no mention of the flag, with the flag just below as it's symbol. However, if you look at the United Nations template, it says "United Nations" at the top with the flag immediately below as well, exactly the same as the flag template. This makes it look like the flag template is covering the "entity" in question, and not the flag.

I propose that the entity parameter be modified to be the flag instead, ie "flag". A parameter could be added such as "represents" or something similar underneath where the organization or country could go instead. That way the template would have Flag of X at the top, with "United Nations", or "Country" below it to make it clear what exactly this template is supposed to be about.

Now I'm not a template guru, so I'm not sure what the options are to make the transition seamless, or if it's really viable at all, for example leaving the "entity" parameter but just moving it down would perhaps leave it not having to be modified afterwards, I'm not sure. trackratte (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I must concur with all of the above; the infobox isn't clear enough on what it's summarising. The header should read "Flag of [x]", either by making "Flag of" a permanent fixture and the name of the relevant nation is inserted into the "name" field or the documentation is changed to direct editors to put "Flag of [x]" into the "name" field, rather than "Name of entity", --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the flag of A generals of a colonial army be that of the main country , the whole Empire or the colonial army he's commanding Consistency hobgoblin (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably not; should be just for the army. Doing otherwise might be misleading people to think it was the national flag. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the "Relinquished" parameter to all the data boxes. At the moment it's only on there for the first one. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister, do you have an example of where this parameter is used? – bradv🍁 00:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Try 'ere. As you can see, it's showing for the first flag but not the second. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done – bradv🍁 00:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Dankie, maat. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please return the {{FIAV}} symbol that was removed in 2012 to the "use" section, but maintain the text descriptions as well, as per the two above discussions. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Fry1989, where and how? The edit in 2012 removed the usage of the template from the "Use" entry of the infobox, however, now articles don't always use the template there. Take Flag of Europe which now uses it in the "design" entry of the infobox. Where would you propose that the template be placed and would you want overrides to stop it being shown in the chosen entry of the infobox (so that specific pages (e.g. Flag of Europe) can keep their existing implementation of the {{FIAV}} template)? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. This may be more complex than I had anticipated. I think the ideal option may actually be to follow the lead of Flag of Canada, where |Use= explains the flag in textual form ("National flag, civil and state ensign"), and is followed immediately by |Symbol= which provides the exact same information but using the FIAV symbol   This may not actually require the template being edited since it appears the two entries are already there. I apologise if I've made this more of a big deal than it ever needed to be. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the template can handle this situation with the |symbol= parameter. My suggestion is that, if it is desired that all articles have the symbol next to the use text, is that the symbol parameter be replaced by a hardcoded {{FIAV}} template call which uses the code provided in the |use= parameter.

However, this could be problematic, as the use parameter of the infobox does not necessarily have to use a code and the FIAV template has to have a code. This would mean that the |symbol= parameter would have to be specified with the code if |use= was customised. To ensure that this would happen, a check would need to be done to ensure that the |use= parameter was one of the allowed parameters to {{FIAV}}: if it was, use it and if it isn't raise an error if |symbol= was not defined.

This would enforce that the vexillological symbol would appear next to use (however, the |symbol= parameter's content can only go next to "Use" currently, so this would only affect articles where the {{FIAV}} template has been placed next to other text). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fry1989: What are your thoughts on my suggestion? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologise but I'm not very technical, so I am slightly confused.

The |Use= parameter currently accepts the FIAV code numbers such as "111100" by themselves but describes this in text. |Use= also accepts {{FIAV|111111}} and then displays the symbol instead of the text description. However, |Symbol= only accepts the second format with the brackets.

It does appear that |Use= and |Symbol= can be used together and this is acceptable to me. It would not require any changes to the template that could possibly cause disruption. Rather it would require going through the various flag pages and re-entering the template properly, since some have the entries out of order or missing entries. This would be manual work, but I don't mind doing it. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Fry1989, my suggestion would only be needed if it was to be enforced that the FAIV symbol was placed next to the use text. It seems like you don't want it enforced, so my change is not needed and thus I don't see any changes to this template being needed. Therefore, I am closing this edit request. If you want it enforced or see that changes are needed to the template, feel free to reopen. If you want to fix articles that don't place FIAV in the right place, then feel free. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The issue was that I misunderstood why the FIAV symbol was missing. But I don't want to do anything that causes any disruption, and your previous comments seemed to suggest that doing your modification may result in some possible disruption. If not, then we can go ahead with your suggestion. But if that is true, I think it may be best to do everything manually. Either way, I appreciate your assistance in answering my request. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Friends!

Some flags have official Flag Days! Can we add this to the infobox? Many Thanks! Jonathan Ng 吳家明 16:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng556 (talk • contribs)

I support this as an optional parameter.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at a couple of articles recently with infoboxes that show several flags. I've just realised why I found them confusing, so request a light horizontal line between each block. For example, I was skimming articles looking for a particular image. I found it as the third flag in the infobox of Flag of Great Britain. When focused on that image, it is not immediately obvious whether to associate it with the "Use" above or below. A thin line between each block would remove the ambiguity. Has this been discussed before? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why there is "United Nations" instead of "Flag of the United Nations" in an example of name parameter? Eurohunter (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Infobox flag and Template:Infobox flag/entry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm requesting that parameters "nickname2", "nickname3", and beyond be styled as infobox headers that come before the image of each additional flag. Additionally requesting that the automatic caption on second images and beyond ("Variant flag of [Name]") be removed. Similar requests have been mentioned in the talk page before. (request for horizontal separators and Variant flag)

For a use case, please see flag of Peru. The caption "Variant flag of the flag of Peru" is unhelpful and unspecific, and the actual label of the flags (e.g. "War flag of Peru") comes much later in an unemphasized way. Having names as headers for each flag will make infoboxes like this much more organized and clear.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editing in progress. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 15:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, @Paine Ellsworth. This is a definite improvement. The larger infoboxes are much more scannable now. A few notes/thoughts:
• It seems like there's an error where, when there's an image2 or beyond but the corresponding "nickname" field is blank, a single quote with a link to the list of flag names appears. To eliminate this, it seems like you'd have to put a nickname in the field even when it wasn't appropriate. (See Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand for example.)
• It also seems like, while the label isn't present, the nickname is now linked to the list of flag names instead. This interferes with being able to link the name to something else instead. (e.g. In the Flag of the United Kingdom, the heading "Blue Ensign" cannot be linked to the Blue Ensign article)
• I'm now wondering if "nickname" is the right field to make a header. It makes sense in some cases, but in other cases the different flags that deserve subheadings don't have nicknames and the "Use" is a more appropriate heading. (See Flag of Israel for example.) I'm not sure what the best fix for this is. Keeping headings as nicknames, changing it to "Use," or maybe making a separate parameter for headers. I'm open to suggestions.
 Not A  Witty Fish 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
To editor NotAWittyFish: made some checks in other flag articles and did find similar anomalies. Since I haven't been able to find a solution to the linking problem (your bullet two above), the link to the list has been removed for now. The problem with what happens when there is no |NicknameN= parameter has been resolved with an "if" parser function. Hesitate to change to "Use" as a header because that parameter is much more complicated in the /entry template. Maybe see how this new change looks and go from there? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again, @Paine Ellsworth. This is looking good. Both of your fixes seem to work great. I wonder if the solution to the third bullet point is to change some of the documentation or label around the parameter so that editors know to use it a spot for a flag's nickname or label? (e.g. in the Flag of the United Kingdom where "Alternate 3:5 ratio" is used as a header but is not, in fact, a nickname.)  Not A  Witty Fish 01:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure, NotAWittyFish! A note has been added to the template documentation. Since the /doc page is not protected, you can modify and add info as you think it is needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 02:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Now that there is a flag families page, I'd like to request an optional "Flag family" parameter to list which family flags belong to (if any).

Diff:

 Not A  Witty Fish 01:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Let's see if that brand-new article survives for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Add a parameter Emoji to Template:infobox flag/entry, for documenting the Unicode character combination for the flag emoji.

Diff: TBD — 08:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)MathAfrique (talk)

  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean for a flag to be "Relinquished"? I might assume it is a polity switching to a new flag, but the word connotes something a bit harsher. Is a flag relinquished if the polity disappears instead? And does the terminology come from somewhere else or is it a novel invention here? Thanks, CMD (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)