Talk:International reaction to the Black Saturday bushfires

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag icons[edit]

An editor has chosen to remove the flag icon from each of the condoling nations [1]. Flags have been used effectively in other similar articles to focus on the diversity of nations offering sympathy and support:

Opinions are sought whether the flag icons should be restored. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Effectively"? Not at all. What purpose do they serve? Please see WP:ICONDECORATION and which is part of the MOS and makes it clear they shouldn't be used in this case.--Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:MOSICON, "They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." WWGB (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They always look naff and more about "cuz we can" rather than aiding readability. Improved readability is debatable. THe list is alphabetical - what more do you want to help you read it? --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the following line: in WP:MOSICON: "Icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration."' --Merbabu (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but "They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." Stop disregarding Wikipedia policies that don't fit with your staunch deletionist approach. Currently I'm sorting through many other official reactions from other countries, and I'm also going to expand on some countries already listed, so this list will grow much longer, and flags will certainly assist others in navigating the page. If the flags concern you so much, then remove them from all the following lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=international+reactions+to --Rehumanist (talk) 3:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with flags - for these kind of lists we are not going to have any pictures or graphs, so it might help to have something to break up the monotony of dot pointed text. Kransky (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, for decoration rather than information you mean? --Merbabu (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is not gimicky, but rather something that makes the contents more pleasing to read than a bare chunk of text. Kransky (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's clear you are saying it's for decorative/aesthetic reasons rather than informative purposes as required by the MOS. --Merbabu (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - as I said it is not gimicky. It does not overpower the senses or distract the reader, which is what the spirit of the ruling you are citing is seeking to prevent. I believe a reasonable person can discern the difference between a modest use of graphics to prevent a whole white screen, and the unnecessary inclusion of unnecessary graphics. Four people alone think this way at least.
Let me also add that I find your Wikipedia:Wikilawyering not just a clumsy attempt to prop up a specious argument, but also a tad aggressive. If you really want to make your mark, why not actually contribute to the article?
I support the use of flags, they add visual information for each country mentioned. Nick carson (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information exactly? Does it help our understanding of their reaction to the fires? --Merbabu (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the flags since the flags are not needed in the article/list. See MOS:FLAG (Read the underlined text within the quote) "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per WP:ICONDECORATION. This is not a long list it's alphabetic, the scan arguement doesn't apply Gnevin (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as per WP:MOSICON. Its a fairly long list. That it is alphabetic isn't a good reason to claim its easy enough to scan. Many people simply don't process information alphabetically/verbally, and the ability to visually search is a very helpful addition. The addition is not intrusive for those who don't use them to scan (the names of the counties are still aligned, making scanning the words easy). The underlined section above of MOS:FLAG does not apply since the flags do not make the list "unclear, ambiguous or controversial" Ehlkej (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for anyone who is interested, the guide everyone is referring to has been under heavy dispute for vague, biased and misleading wording since Gnevin got involved in editing it. It's not a wp:policy and shouldn't be referred to or treated as such. Once use of the guide gets to the point of disputing over what it means, it's already failed to serve as a guide. WP:Consensus should be the determining factor in this article since the guide has already failed to mediate the debate. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been or hard been clear for a long time. When did Gnevin get involved? I see flag supporters offering two general reasons to have flags: (1) they think they look good (ie, decorative), and (2) they aid navigation/readibility. (1) is against MOS and purely subjective, and (2) is debatable (i think they hinder readability) and redundant as text is far superior. I read text a lot better more efficiently than I read flags, as I suspect most people do. --Merbabu (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point #1 is what's under dispute in the guide, not just the wording. Gnevin removed the dispute tags and archived the dispute before it was resolve. Not only is "decorative" in and of itself, not a problem, but you are absolutely right that decorative is subjective, which is exactly why the guide is ineffective as a guide, but instead being used as a substitute for policy. It's a false badge of authority.
As for your point #2, you are only speaking for yourself. So I respect your vote in the matter as long as we both understand that it's a matter of WP:CON from this point on and that the guide has no authority over any consensus reached on this page. If I had to vote in the matter, I would say that the flags are harmless. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summation of views[edit]

It is my view that there is sufficient support for retention of the flags:

(1) four users support the flags (Kransky, Rehumanist, WWGB and Nick carson), plus possibly another user who uses an IP address, versus the sole dissenter Merbabu. I will also add that Merbabu has contributed very little, if anything, to this article.

(2) there is sufficient precedence with the inclusion of flags in other similar articles. Consistency across articles has been a Wikipedia objective, if not a core requirement. I am yet to see Merbabu initiate debate, let alone achieve consensus, on removing flags on all articles.

(3) I would agree with Merbabu that the fact that the list is alphabetical dispels one reason presented by WWGB. However Merbabu has not provided in my view a substantial and credible reason why the flags should be removed, except on technical grounds that would appear to belie the spirit of the ruling he is citing.

I humbly ask Merbabu to accept the views of WWGB, Nick Carson, Rehumanist and myself. As I believe there is little more that either side can add to this debate, he sends this to RFC if he is unhappy with the decision that the majority of us has made. Kransky (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all that you don't even mention how it contravenes the MOS. Flags are not for decoration. I've just seen the page and it looks like a bunch of primary school kids wrote it. The flags are very distracting. Kransky himself admits he wants flags because there are no pictures. WIkipedia is not a vote, it's consensus based on policy. I cannot see WP:PRECEDENCE anywhere. But thanks for pointing out my lack of contribution - indeed, i spend my time writing serious articles. Sorry my attempts to improve wikipedia failed here. --Merbabu (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that Merbabu has contributed very little, if anything, to this article. No it is you who is aggressive and flippant. And, you still have not addressed why you should be able break the MOS and why you should be able to use flags as decorations as you freely admit. Please address that. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted it - there 2 against according to the edit history, not just me. And wikipedia is not a vote. --Merbabu (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the contribution from your mate Longhair.
Agree that there is no consensus for flags, but there is also no consensus for keeping them. We have failed to understand each other's position, and a flippant and aggressive attitude will not help us get closer to any consensus. I am sorry if you do not consider this article as serious, but if you still consider it worthwhile please initiate a RFC on the use of flags Kransky (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I will also add that Merbabu has contributed very little, if anything, to this article." No it is you who is aggressive and flippant. Since when does the frequency of editing an article count for more? My suggestion is for that comment to be retracted. You still have not addressed why you should be able break the MOS and why you should be able to use flags as decorations as you freely admit. Please address that. --Merbabu (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that Merbabu has contributed very little, if anything, to this article. No it is you who is aggressive and flippant. And, you still have not addressed why you should be able break the MOS and why you should be able to use flags as decorations as you freely admit. Please address that. --Merbabu (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Rehumanist explained it adequately above (They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon). Do you have anything to say to refute this? You fail to understand there are many ways of interpreting the MOS, and there are other people who, while understanding the reasons behind your views, may consider other interpretations to have stronger validity.
Based on the edit history you have, well, contributed very little to this article. Others have researched facts, compiled citations and crafted text - and we could be doing a lot more instead of responding to your vexatiousness, Wikilawyering and uncivil attitude (I've just seen the page and it looks like a bunch of primary school kids wrote it).
Either respond to Rehumanist's comments, take it to a RFC, or leave the flags. Kransky (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The countries: "Andorra, Brazil, Cuba, Ireland, Nauru, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine and Uganda" appear within prose without bullet points and are thus (presumably) even more difficult to read. Perhaps we need to put flags next to these countries too? Just to be consistent in providing additional information on these countries (as we have done with the list). What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We use commas to separate sequences of words (in this case, countries) in prose. In listing several descriptions (in this case, details of whatever statements or actions were made by the countries) it would be appropriate to give each listing something more distinctive and discernable, such as the name of the country printed in bold or underlined, or possibly bullet-pointed).
Are you trying to be funny or disruptive? Kransky (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Funny or disruptive"? Please try and assume good faith. On the contrary - I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. It's seems you're suggesting it's OK to use flags in a list (even if it's bulleted and bolded - as it was), but not in prose (which is actually harder to read - which I only point out as concern has been raised over reader's ability to read unflagged text). As lack of images and readability in lists is such an issue that we can go excatly contrary to very specific MOS guidelines (and despite the fact that we have bolded writing and bullet points - the benefit of which we actually both agree), perhaps you could suggest what we put into this list. --Merbabu (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I find it hard to assume you are exercising good faith, but I will try. Text in prose is treated differently to text in lists. I have never implied that we should use bullet points in prose. We use bullet points to sort separate chunks of text in lists, and to give that chunk of text a semblence of belonging to one specific idea. We don't use bullet points in prose because we generally are not dealing with large chunks of text (and if we are, there are various compositional and punctuation elements we can draw on).
If neither of us can agree, I will take it upon myself to initiate a RFC. Kransky (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest we use bullet points in prose. I asked what is wrong with using them in lists? And why they are inferior to flags. I'm assuming that you believe that a list such as List of Indonesians (for example) is not adequately "distinct" or "discernible" - but I'm not sure what flag we would use. But, you haven't replied.
Hmmm - how specifically would I not be assuming good faith? --Merbabu (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest we use bullet points in prose. I asked what is wrong with using them in lists? I never said anything about bullet points in lists, but if you want my views, I would say there is nothing wrong with using them. But I would add there is nothing wrong with adding a parsimonious, modest amount of colour in the form of flag icons.
As for the list of Indonesians, I would have no problems if they were presented with bullet points or flag icons (but why would you have flag icons if everybody would have an Indonesian flag - clearly this is not a valid example to your argument).
Your previous intemperate comments, Wikilawyering (arguing over the letter, not the spirit, of the MOS) and misrepresenting my position (that by implication we should be putting flag icons in prose) are grounds for me to assume you are not acting in good faith.
This is going to be a RFC now. It is out of our hands. Good night. Kransky (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it wikilawyering? The MOS says flags are not to be used for decorative purposes and you're arguing for them based on adding a "modest amount of colour". In what way am I breaking the spirit of the MOS? It seems pretty black and white.
I never misrepresented your position - as I have already said, I am pointing out the inconsistency of flag use. --Merbabu (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - very well-spotted. Yes, flags would be particularly useless in the List of Indonesians. But most lists are not lists of countries. --Merbabu (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I havn't been paying much attention to this article as there appears to me a fair few more important things to be devoting my time to right now than protocol-motivated political international reactions and condolences towards Australia after these bushfires. The fact that we as WP editors are arguing over the use of flag icons is just insane. The use of flag icons is obviously a positive addition to the article and aids the reader in identifying the country if it's flag is beside the text. So yes, I'm in support of the use of flag icons, but not in support of this discussion. Let's settle it quickly and focus on more important matters. Nick carson (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction when looking at the page was: the flags make this article look a mess, and they should go. However, I've read here some compelling arguments for their inclusion... So, having taken another gander at the page, I wonder now if it's not the flags that make for a visually messy page, but the layout of the page as a whole; ie. the bullet format and point form sentences. My inclination now is to see what a chart-type layout would look like. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Something akin to this, though perhaps someone with better code skills could make it the borders look better. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"messy". You've hit it on the head. Compare it to the bolded and bulleted version and you see that it is indeed messy. --Merbabu (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] And my "chartified" suggestion? (PS- I don't find the bolded and bulleted version all that great looking either... no offence! ;) ) --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charted without flags would be better, but wikipedia should be minimalist. It should be about succinctly providing *relevant* info (what does the appearance of a country's flag have to do with their response to fires?), and not about making articles pretty. With or without charted look, flags look unprofessional like someone's got the crayons out on their school project - ie, messy, unnecessary and low brow. As for readability, i think articles are far less readable and distracting with flags. TO be honest, I also see charts as being unnecessary baggage. I really can't get away from the feeling that the impetuous for flags is "oh cool, we can do that - neat trick" rather than dispensing *relevant* info.--Merbabu (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The flags can add a certain amount of visual comprehension to the page; as someone pointed out, they're not necessary, but they do help make the list easier to navigate. I just think it can be done more professionally than what's there now. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have we forgotten what this was about? Flag icons. This has gone on way too long. Just reading through this needlessly longwinded and repetitious argument has left me drained, and I no longer care one way or the other. Like someone else said, there are way more important things.

--Rehumanist (talk) 6:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred Phelps[edit]

In the media coverage, Paster Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church received tremenedous attention for his anti-Australian and homophobic preaching, linking the Victorian bushfires to Heath Ledger. This is a form of international reaction, negative as it may be. I do think a section should be added to this page since it infuriated many Australians and people around the world. --74.33.13.121 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined. We appear to have limited comments from governments. If we break this precedent and include Phelps's comments, then we should include other commentary from more influential persons. I think we have made reference to a similar example with the Catch the Fire Ministries in the main article. Kransky (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point[edit]

What is the point of this page existing? It's so pointless it's almost funny. Ericoides (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reaction_to_the_Black_Saturday_bushfires&oldid=1202609485"