Category talk:Flag template shorthands

RfC on overlinking
says that major examples of countries  which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar  are usually not linked, implying that some of these shorthands should use flagu unstead of flag. So I propose changing the shorthands of sovereign UN member states (except microstates) to use the unlinked flag template while those of dependent territories and other non-sovereign entities (perhaps except the United Nations) remain linked as they are now. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag templates are generally used in lists and tables, Fernando, not prose; MOS:OL doesn't apply to them (MOS:DL):(It seems to me the adequate place for this discussion, which need not be an RfC, is at WT:Countries.)— Guarapiranga ☎ 11:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in the absence of quantitative evidence, I wouldn't assume that UN member states are generally "countries which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar". If a reader can't find a country on a map, a link to that country's article seems like it might be helpful to that reader (if only so they could learn where it is). There's a judgment call to be made in specific articles for which the average reader can be assumed to have some background knowledge. But for templates like these that are used project-wide it seems like linking might be the best policy. -- Visviva (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Visviva. If it's to prose this proposal refers to, then WP:LINK simply requires all countries to be linked once in the text, without distinction (which is all too subjective and endlessly contentious, as it plays right into the microgeopolitical footballing we see at country lists on WP). — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure map literacy is a good indicator of partial familiarity. Something like the number of searches or how often a country is mentioned in the news or GDP or population might be better indicators. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, enwiki is not uswiki, Fernando. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the table in the second reference. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Disagree as proposed. This is a big change: FRA has 19,000+ transclusions and that's just one of templates under consideration here. My main concern is that templates in this category are just conveniences. If an editor chooses to use one of these templates, it is also their decision not to use flagu directly. Implementing this as proposed overrides that decision by previous editors on the basis of applying a guideline which 1. is expected to have some exceptions, 2. requires the use of "common sense", and 3. uses the very loose qualifier "usually". Taken with the fact that there are related guidelines at MOS:FLAGS it seems likely that in a very large number of cases, this change would risk overriding some existing local consensus. A better approach is to discuss MOS adherence at the article level where more context is available for the various ways these templates might be used. --N8wilson 20:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)