User talk:Sillyfolkboy/Resources/MOS:SportsFlag

Quibbles
Good job summarizing a sprawling, multi-sided debate. I only have a few quibbles:
 * Re: "some see supporters of the current guideline as simply trying to impose their preferred style on a topic area they have little interest in": At least add "(despite the fact that many of MOSFLAG's principle editors are sports editors, and sport-related objections to its wording are largely coming from a small number of wikiprojects)" or the like. I wrote the original draft of what we have there today, and probably at least 50% of the base content at MOS:ICONS (WP:MOSFLAG), and introduced probably 80% of the main ideas in it.  I'm the founder of WP:WikiProject Cue sports and edit other sports articles, and many other editors of the page are also frequent sports editors.  The vast majority of sports projects and sports editors have no problem with MOS:ICONS at all. The objections are coming almost entirely from three projects, and even of those most of them are coming from one, WP:FOOTY.  This "your opinion doesn't count because you don't edit these articles" argument is bogus on at least two other levels, namely WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  The value of consistent rules across the encyclopedia isn't just independent of the quirks of any given wikiproject isn't valuable  it's above those petty peccadilloes.
 * "The following flag usages are subject to further discussion..." should read "The following flag usages (against current guideline) are subject to further discussion...". Your present wording suggests that they're new ideas not covered by the guideline. The entire genesis of the dispute is that they are covered and some editors want to make exceptions for them.
 * There's an frequently cited essay on whether sources should affect style, and why they must not when doing what they do would not be what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers: WP:Specialist style fallacy. (I don't know whether it was cited much in that particular debate, but it comes up very frequently in wikiprojects' conflicts with MOS/AT/DAB, RS, N, and other policies and guidelines where topical editors are prone to seek special rules just for them).
 * "...demonstrate sporting nationality only (i.e. not the legal nationality)" would be better as "demonstrate sporting nationality only (i.e. not the legal nationality, residence, former residence, birthplace, etc.)" Legal nationality (citizenship) is not at all the only verboten use of flagicons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)