Talk:Flag of Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening of old parliament house

We only have Septimus Power's word that old parliament house was festooned with red ensigns on opening day.

I think you will find there is some debate as to whether his painting is accurate.

Steaknife (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources that say the flags were red ensigns. It's possible the colours were changed by the photographer in much the same way as pictures of WW2 red ensigns were often overpainted blue after the Blue was proclaimed the National flag (These altered pics are often used by monarchists to support not changing the flag). However, until evidence they were not red is found we have to accept the sources as correct. BTW...do not leave abusive messages on my user page. Use the talk page. Wayne (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bold

I've been bold. I've gone in there and done major surgery on this article.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To Paraphrase Voltair, "I may not agree with your politics, but I’ll defend to the death your right to edit". Good job but be careful with refs....you broke a couple so check the text displays properly after editing. Wayne (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! It's going to take me some time to asborb all these changes... Ian Fieggen (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some concern about copyright violation in the work of the anon (who appears closely related to Steakknife). I will go through and delete the images with incorrect copyright notices. Some of them could probably be used if anyone bothered to do their research properly, but we do need to consider whether having that many images is appropriate - the user appears to have an image fetish. I will also remove the text that has been directly quoted from posts to a mailing list which allows its material to be published with conditions including attribution and non-commercial use. JPD (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but I own the copyright for the image of the HMAS Hobart. Can that image at least reappear? It shows the Australian Blue Ensign being used as a 'battle flag' on the mainmast. Some Captains flew it there instead of the British Blue Ensign.

Actually all those images I uploaded were in order. Use some of them if not all.

I take time and resources to participate in this project.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned about those images many many times, and yet you still have not bothered to correctly give the copyright details. Why do you say you own the copyright? Who was the photographer, and when did they give the copyright to you? All these sorts of details must be included when the image is uploaded. You claimed that the image of the signed Flags Act was released under a Creative Commons license, which is completely unbelievable. Are you really saying that that is "in order"? It doesn't take that much more time to be honest. JPD (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was given the rights to the image by a member of the AFS. He said he took the picture. I told John Perryman of the RAN archives and he had already seen it and it was on file. A lot of people other than the Flag Society knows about it.

Get it back up there Mr Dixon! What do you have to hide!

121.216.232.15 (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really do have the rights, then give the proof on the image page, when you upload it. These details are required for every image on Wikipedia. How much more should we ask you to clarify when you have already blatantly infringed copyright and made ridiculous claims about other images? JPD (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry etc

This article seems to have been attacked by a series of sockpuppet IPs, tracked back from other articles. I've removed a lot of the crap on this talk page - however, the sheer number of edits from the individual concerned on the article may need to be looked at by a subject expert. I would personally suggest reverting to a stable version and adding back only the changes people can agree on, but as a non-expert I'm loath to do that myself. Orderinchaos 10:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content seems reasonable on this occasion, but there might be copyright issues with some of it. JPD (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

can tou show me the five flag the were chosen and put together to mAKE THE aUSTRALIAN FLAG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.200.15 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I realize that the infobox was smashing a lot of the other images down, but I think we should try to avoid if possible having a formatting issue remove some very useful information. The article is on the flag of Australia, but Australia uses different flags for different purposes, and those other flags and ensigns are not currently represented. Perhaps it could be restored, and the RAAF flag removed to make the box a bit smaller? I really don't think the current solution is the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpadkorossy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Australia vs. Flag of New Zealand

Are the blue textures of these two flags the same or are they supposed to be different? The blues of these two flags in Wikipedia are slightly different and I am not sure if this is correct or not. Thanks,Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The blues on both flags are the same in real life: Pantone 280C. Because there is no universally accepted conversion from Pantone colors to RGB screen colors, most flags on Wikipedia use approximations. The Australian flag has an official specification for screen colors, so this has been adhered to, even though it does make the flag appear brighter. Ian Fieggen (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so basically the flag of New Zealand in Wikipedia is incorrect, I am not an artist or graphic designer, but I can cleary see the differenes. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a case of either being "incorrect". The Australian flag in Wikipedia is correct because it uses the officially specified RGB screen colors. The New Zealand flag in Wikipedia is also correct because although the chosen RGB screen colors have been approximated rather than officially specified, they do closely resemble an actual cloth flag in real life, which will always appear a little drab. Ian Fieggen (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal recognition

Is there a disconnect between

The current specifications were published in 1934, and in 1954 the flag became legally recognised as the "Australian National Flag" (lede)

and

A simplified version of the competition-winning design was officially approved as the Flag of Australia by King Edward VII in 1902 (in "1901 Federal Flag Design Competition")?

What I'm getting at is that the King's 1902 approval was issued under Letters Patent and it had the full force of law behind it. I acknowledge that the specific design he approved in 1902 was different from that specifed in 1934 and the one that was the subject of the 1954 Act, but in principle, he approved the flag in 1902. Would it be better to say:

The current specifications were published in 1934, and in 1954 the flag became legally recognised by parliamentary statute as the "Australian National Flag"?

Otherwise, we seem to be suggesting that the King's approval was not legally binding, and that prior to 1954 there was no official Australian flag. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim concerning Letters Patent? While the Red Ensign was given an Admiralty Warrant, as required by the Merchant Navigation Act, as far as I know colonial blue ensigns were simply made "official" following authorisation by relevant departments for inclusion in the Flag Book.

The lack of a formal instrument establishing the status of the flag certainly does not imply that it was not official, but I think the point intended in that sentence was more along the lines that the approval in 1902 certainly did not endorse language such as "Australian National Flag". In any case, the current version of the sentence certainly works. JPD (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

References

I don't understand the references in this article, beginning with: ^ a b c d e f g Australian Flags, pp. 2–3. And "kwan"?RayJohnstone (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Constant image removal

[[:File:Antarctic adventure australian flag.png|thumb|The Australian Flag as depicted in the 1985 video game Antarctic Adventure.]]

Could someone tell me why my improvement to this article keeps getting removed? Surely you can see that this image provides a rich and colourful commentary on the diversity of uses for the Flag of Australia in popular culture. Despite this, my image has been removed three times and it has been tagged for so-called "speedy deletion". I strongly believe that this image provides a substantial amount of useful information to Wikipedia and greatly benefits the readers' understanding of the article in question. Keshidragon (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not the one responsible, I think I can see why your image was removed from this article. Besides the copyright violation, it seems a little out of place here, especially considering that the article doesn't contain a section on the depiction of the Australian flag in media such as video games. To me, the main thing that is interesting about the image is how the flag is depicted in such low resolution (looks like 15 x 12 pixels). The image may well be useful elsewhere in Wikipedia, particularly in pages relating to low-res bitmapped graphics, video games, and the Antarctic Adventure game in particular. Ian Fieggen (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why does someone keep altering the above image to prevent it from being visible? I would like an explanation. Keshidragon (talk) 11:56 am, Today (UTC−5)

Because it's a copyrighted image, and they can't be used on talk pages. So stop, or you risk being blocked for a copyvio. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks for clearing that up. Keshidragon (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy

Did the RAN exist before 1911?

121.216.232.15 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Until 1911 it was called the Australian Commonwealth Navy and was under the control of the British Admiralty. Wayne (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In many info boxes the RAN White Ensign has been used instead of the RN White Ensign. Since the Australian one didn't come into existence until the 1960s which one should be used for pre 1960s RAN ships on Wikipedia? Ozdaren (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The practice in the Ships and Military History wikiprojects is to use the ensign the ship was flying when she was decommissioned. Anything leaving service before March 1967 should have the RN ensign. -- saberwyn 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. That's just the info I need. Many thanks. Ozdaren (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The flag debate

This is outdated: "The level of support for a change in the flag has grown since the 1980s."

There is a batch of recent polls which show this is simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.202.171 (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then cite those polls, and we'll see if it can be added to the article. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did cite the latest Morgan Poll - April 2010 - but that edit was reverted. This poll shows the level of support has in fact the same since the 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.180.81 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing source info

The source Australian Flags is cited numerous times throughout the article, but I can't seem to find information about the source: i.e. author, publication date, full title, etc. Can anyone help me out? -- saberwyn 08:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is the book by the Australian Government, I can provide that info if you still need it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar flags

There are a lot of lookalike flags in this world. Monaco's and Indonesia's are identical. But if you look up their wikipedia article they have no section entitled "Similar flags".

Take it out I say.

121.217.113.158 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are smaller and very lightly sourced, compared to this article. On another article on a national flag, Japan, there are two similar flags and it was discussed in length at the article there. Given also that Ausflag repeatedly cites the fact that Australia's flag is very similar to those of surrounding nations and colonies as part of their movement to change the Australian flag, it would be not very wise to take it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt of there is any movement such as that in Australia to change the flags of Monaco and Indonesia. Different situation. Different content. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In the lead of the Monaco's article, they will state what flags it was similar to. While I mixed two different issues together (while trying to tie in the Ausflag image we have), I still think the content should not be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening of old parliament house: POV dispute

There is a very good chance the Australian flags used at the opening of provisional parliament house in 1927 were blue ensigns: http://www.flagsociety.org.au/Parliament_house_puzzle.htm

The article takes Ausflag's side and says they were red. I've included a lithograph of the opening with the flags shown as blue for balance. This image appeared in Elizabeth Kwan's "Flag and Nation".

121.217.113.158 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Septimus Power painting of the opening of Parliament in 1927 the flags are red ensigns and Union flags. Kwan says that both the red and blue were sent to the opening but there is no record of which were used apart from the Power painting. Some who want to keep the current flag argue that the artist used poetic licence and that they were really blue. Until evidence they were not red is found we have to accept the eyewitness source as correct. The lithograph you added to the article is not an eyewitness account (flags are in the wrong place) and the resolution is poor so you cant even tell what country they represent. The image is ambiguous so not a good example of anything for this article.Wayne (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Was Septimus Power there that day?

What makes his painting any more accurate than the lithograph by the unknown artist? Why does one have anymore probative value than the other?

You get the real impression from Kwan that on the balance of probabilities the Australian flags that day were blue.

P.S. There's nothing wrong with the lithograph by the unknown artist. If it was good enough for inclusion in Flag and Nation, the seminal work on the Australian flag, don't you think it is good enough for wikipedia? You can't really see the stars on the red ensigns in Power's version of events either.

121.217.113.158 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You can get whatever impression you like from Kwan but it doesn't change what is known or give it any "probative value" at all. Kwan did not say there was a balance of probability, she only says it was possible ("perhaps" is the word she uses). The power painting is by a known person and is the official painting of the event so should take precedence over a lithograph by a unknown person who was likely not even there. Hopefully using an actual image of the opening will resolve the POV "dispute" brought by a SPA who supports the blue version.Wayne (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Was Septimus Power even there that day?

The flags were blue. They were sticklers for getting things right in those days. I've listed this matter for mediation.121.217.113.158 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"They were sticklers for getting things right in those days." In 1927 they used the Federation flag as the national flag for the visit of the future King George VI and Queen Elizabeth and they used Red Ensigns for the 1954 visit of Queen Elizabeth, which was after the Blue had been legislated as the National flag. Dont you think mediation is a bit of overkill? Except for POV reasons there is no need to use the lithograph image in the first place. Please post the page where the mediation is listed.Wayne (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos from http://www.flickr.com/photos/old_parliament_house/3049572868/in/set-72157609644447431/ could possibly help. These are also public domain due to age in Australia (so ignore the Flickr licensing). The use of the flags can be clearly seen (both AU and UJ) but the colors, not so sure. I think it is worth nothing that multiple viewpoints can be given and, as copyrights allow, multiple images can be shown. As for this image we have now, it is very low quality and the source is unknown. No URL or anything. Ideally, it should be removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two records of what flags were flown that day, both different. That's my point.

121.217.113.158 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. First you tell with absolute certainty that the flags were blue, now you tell us that there were two conflicting records. I don't want you as my lawyer next time I'm in court.

Clearly there is no certainty. It's a pointless exercise using these old pics, especially any hand coloured or B&W ones. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The article shouldn't say for certain the they flags were red in light of the lithograph by the unknown artist.

121.217.113.158 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

All we know is that the official painting shows red flags, some others show blue. We got this point covered already. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Change of gif image

I've removed the animated gif from the top of the article because it looks cheap, and no other flag article seems to have something like it. a flag article should have a simple, static depiction at the top, so I've replaced it with the box from the next section. It needs to be improved (the red ensign should probably be moved and there needs to be some more basic info - design, and adoption date and so on) but I'm not familiar enough with the wiki to do it myself. Feel free to discuss. Dallas (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar flag section

Some editors have restored to the article a section that looks like this:

The New Zealand flag is similar to the Australian flag, both having the Union flag in the canton and the Southern Cross on the fly. However, the southern cross on the Australian flag is white, and has 5 stars, whereas on the flag of New Zealand flag there are only 4 stars, all red with a white fimbriation (outline). Australia's flag also has a seven pointed star below the Union Flag, which the New Zealand flag lacks.

The flags of Fiji and Tuvalu also have the Union Flag in the canton on a blue background. Many other flags also contain the Southern Cross.

I've deleted it since it a) includes flag icons embedded in the prose, which is against WP:MOSFLAG; b) the selection of similar flags is seemingly random, with no apparent reason for mention of the flag of Fiji, but not that of the Pictairn Islands or any of the other 24 flags shown in this image; c) it doesn't make clear what importance similar flags hold to the subject of this article other than being similar; and d) it is completely unsourced.

In this revert, the editor made mention of "those who think it's an issue"; I presumed he was referring to people who want the flag changed because its design is so similar to others. If so, that can be expressed in less than a sentence, which I added here. If I'm wrong, I trust someone can clarify things for me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the characteristics of the Australian flag is that it IS confused with others from time to time. It has happened at significant events. I don't like to see it happen, so yes, it is one of the reasons I would like to see it changed. But irrespective of that, to deny its similarity would be a denial of something important. I can live with the new wording but, although I know the wrong flag has been flown in the past, I'm not sure where to look for a citation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the citation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. The times when I've seen confusion within Australia have involved use of state flags. Since they came first (they were the flags of the colonies) it's pretty obvious where the idea for the Aussie flag came from. When the national flag and a state flag have both been flying in a limp wind, I've certainly heard kids asking for explanations, and parents having no answers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand now what the intent of the section was, but I don't think it was achieving that goal. Plus it had a number of already mentioned other problems. I'd also hesitate to put much more in than there already is on the matter of the flag's appearance in comparison to that of other flags. I just noticed that the section "The flag debate" is supposed to be merely a summary, with Australian flag debate being the main article for detail. In fact, I think the aforementioned section could do with some trimming. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if the similarity thing is mentioned, all that should be necessary is to say that the Australian flag shares the Union Jack with many other flags of Commonwealth nations. Gazzster (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

...and Hawaii.

And the southern cross occurs on quite a few flags too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I suppose soGazzster (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the section's been put back again by my regular anonymous stalker, without, as usual, any input on the talk page. It would seem from the discussion above that there's agreement it doesn't serve much purpose; the anon made some changes, but the section still doesn't say anything other than that there are flags that look similar to Australia's. Well, so what? And, even if that is worth mentioning, it can be done in one sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With what arrogance have you decided that "from the discussion above...there's agreement it doesn't serve much purpose"? I certainly haven't agreed with that proposition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I concluded there was agreement from the lack of expressed disagreement with my criticisms and solution to them. Arrogance had nothing to do with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP stated it was the "status quo" to have that section. I merged the content. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP said he was restoring the status quo and then proceeded to change the status quo, anyway. Regardless, simply stating, in a separate section, no less, that the flag is similar to other flags doesn't explain how that fact relates to the debate around the flag. Your merge was an appropriate fix. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy and the ANF

The article could mention that the practice of the navy was to fly a large ANF from the mainmast as a battle flag when a warship went to action stations. Banjo Patterson wrote about this in his poem "We're all Australians now" when the HMAS Sydney did it when she sunk the SS Emden at the beginning of WW1.

Gloriousrevolution (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AustraliaScan research

I found this:

The annual AustraliaSCAN (which surveys 2000 Australians) has found that support for keeping the Australian flag has risen from 57per cent in 2001 to 65per cent in 2011. Support for changing the flag dropped from 19per cent in 2001 to 13per cent in 2011. We love the flag ... despite the fact that it looks exactly like New Zealand and is a derivative of Great Britain, Randell says.***

Source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/republic-floats-away-as-royal-reign-lingers/2332485.aspx?storypage=0

Let's work out a way to include it in the article. There's a trend there consistent with the other polls. Also, 13% is not a significant minority.

Actually a figure like that, calling it a "debate" is almost an insult to the flag Australia adopted around Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.34.60 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag "debate"

There's mounting evidence the minority in Australia for a new national flag is no longer signficant: it's the settled will of the people that the existing design remains.

You'd have to think that will be reflected in changes to the article at some stage.

Let's talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.34.60 (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to think about it, but Wikipedia is not a forum, so discussing it here is not appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support for change may have collapsed to 13%. As of today there's a flag debate. One that's being kept artifically alive.

A very telling figure: it's not going to be in our day.

58.164.34.60 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

RGB or Pantone

Could we possibly replace the Infobox RGB flag with the Pantone one? The New Zealand Flag already uses a pantone one so why no us? It should at least appear correctly is all I'm saying... AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The main reason why the NZ flag article is using the main image as Pantone is there is no RGB specifications for the flag. What we usually do is go with RGB first with flag colors (in images), then Pantone. Both flags appear in the article and it is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We could swap them around? That way it's the first one you see. AnimatedZebra (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely that the RGB flag colours were chosen in 1994, or perhaps even earlier. Personally I wouldn't consider that to be a reliable resource for usage of the web. 220.239.98.115 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian National Flag Day

Why does Australian National Flag Day redirect here and not to the article Flag Day (Australia)?

Gloriousrevolution (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad redirect, support changing to redirecting Australian National Flag Day to Flag Day (Australia) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a seconder. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisited

The above page move needs a rethink, or at least a clear explanation of why it was appropriate, because the above certainly doesn't give me that. I've raised the issue @ Talk:Flag Day (Australia). Best to keep the discussion in one place, over there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it. It wasn't a page move. But the title ("Flag Day (Australia)" vs. "Australian National Flag Day") is still an issue that needs resolution. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Union Jack?

I'm uncomfortable using the term "Union Jack" to refer to the British "Union Flag". I know it's common usage here and around the world, but other nations have Union Jacks, notably the United States of America referring to the national flag flown on the jackstaff of a naval vessel. Presumably Estados Unidos Mexicanos naval vessels fly a union jack as well. If we are giving a definitive description of our flag and two terms are available, both well understood, we should use the more precise term. --Pete (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I submit that they are not both well understood. I have never heard an Australian refer to that top left quarter of the national flag as the Union Flag. It may appeal to flag specialists, but obviously not to the general public. Who should we be aiming to please here? That's the question. Mainstream Aussies, whose flag it is, or flag aficionados? HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

if we aim to keep vexillologists from wincing, we should be doing okay. If we write an encyclopedia that merely tells the common Australian what he already knows, or thinks he knows, we might as well not bother. The idea is to leave the readers a little more informed than before. --Pete (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How about including "(also known as the Union Jack)" after the first mention of he Union Flag in the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"more commonly known as the Union Jack" is more accurate. Wayne (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's correct, but we seem to have a couple of editors arguing the opposite, and I was trying to be diplomatic  ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a vexillologist and I use both terms interchangeably. While it is technically the Union Jack, it is called the Union Flag in other Commonwealth states, such as Canada (where it is officially called the Royal Union Flag). The British Government uses both terms, but explains that Flag can be used for use on land and Jack on sea. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, the Union Flag term is used more often in the UK itself and has been used as the official term by some bodies, such as Foreign Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Justice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd never heard the term Union flag before I read this article. I though Union Jack was the proper name and it was the only name used by schoolteachers in history class in the primary and secondary schools I attended. Wayne (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As per HiLo48's suggestion above, I think we need to use both terms and although the wikilinks make it clear which flag we are talking about, we should avoid confusion. My understanding is that Union Flag is more precise, but Union Jack is more widely known, especially in Australia. The blue flag with 50 white stars flown at the jackstaff of US Navy ships is a union jack, a term more widely used in that sense by Americans, though the stripes and rattlesnake version known as the First Navy Jack is becoming known by that term as well.. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Union Jack starts out: The Union Flag, commonly known as the Union Jack, .... The infobox is also headed Union Flag. It can't decide whether it's an article about the Union Jack or the Union Flag. How is anyone else supposed to know? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is because the article was moved recently (in August 2012) from "Union Flag" to "Union Jack" by what seems to be a biased Admin. I've read through the comments on the talk page and there really wasn't anything compelling about either side of the argument. I always thought if there wasn't any concensus then the page shouldn't be moved! --59.167.188.229 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For the United States, the Union Jack (until Sept 2002) was basically the canton (Union) part of the American flag that was used on the front of a ship (where a jack is, so that is where the term came from). However, since 2002, the Union Jack has been replaced by the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism and the Union Jack is not to be used at all. See s:SECNAV Instruction 10520.6 for more information. But even so, when you ask someone about the Union Jack, it is going to be the British flag. I know that article has been moved around a lot, but that is neither here or there. Use both terms, but do wikilink the title and just be to use one term throughout the article (unless it is a direct quotation). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Union Jack vs Union Flag. We should have consistency across Wikipedia

We don't have an article called Union Flag. It's a redirect to Union Jack. Whether everyone agrees or not, it's what consensus has decided. It's just plain silly for this article to be consistently pointing to a redirect. So I changed links here pointing to Union Flag to point to Union Jack.

My old foe Pete(Skyring) has typically reverted what seemed to me a perfectly rational and uncontroversial change within Wikipedia guidelines (avoiding redirects where possible), with an Edit summary of "Union Flag" is the technically correct term. "Union Jack" is a second-rate usage." I really don't care what Pete thinks is second rate. That argument was lost at Talk:Union Jack. The point is that this debate has been had. It's pointless regurgitating it again here. So any comment about technical correctness is irrelevant here. (Take it to Talk:Union Jack again, again, again....)

This article should obviously be consistent with Union Jack (and Union Flag, the redirect). After Pete's revert, it's not. I don't want an Edit war, especially with Pete. History shows that he hates me for my (mostly successful) past efforts to keep his political POV pushing out of this encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, any interaction he has with me IS personal. I have vowed to not interact with him, but he has chosen to fight consensus AND me here.

Can an independent editor please add their thoughts here? Logically those thoughts can only be about whether this article should be pointing to an easily avoidable redirect. They cannot be about whether "Union Jack" is the correct term. That debate belongs elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussion, we decided to keep the link to Union Flag. Your unilateral change to Union Jack ignored the existing consensus. WP:BRD applies and we can have the same discussion. Perhaps we'll reach a different consensus. That's the way things work and I'm happy with that. You should have checked here before making your preferred change, particularly when the previous discussion is so recent. --Pete (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussion, we didn't decide anything. Please discuss the point I have made above about unnecessary redirects. You've avoided it so far in both that comment and in your Edit summary. You often do that when I make an effective point. Better still, stay away from this discussion and let some independent minded people have their say. I'm happy to do that, unless you again make claims that are simply not true. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point about redirects. My point is that you should gain consensus before making a change, especially when the previous discussion did not support a change. There were multiple editors participating and multiple editors opposed your position. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You claim you understand my point about redirects, and then deflect the debate with a tactic that saves you discussing that very point. If you're going to stay in this discussion, please DISCUSS my point about redirects. And the fact that consensus was achieved on this matter in what is obviously the primary article. Don't find another excuse to deflect my points and attack in return, as you just did. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at the Union Jack article. BTW, isn't Union Flag commonly associated with the USA flag of the American Civil War? GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The term you would hear most is the Stars and Stripes or the 35 star flag (created in 1863 when Virginia was partitioned and made into what is known as West Virginia. You will hear Union Army a lot, but not Union flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK GoodDay, you asked at the Union Jack article, and got one reply saying nothing more than the bleeding obvious, that Union Flag is a redirect. I've given it three days. I really don't care what state the discussion above ended in. This is not the Union Jack/Union Flag article. What was decided over there at Talk:Union Jack must obviously apply here when talking of that flag. It would be nonsensical, and make Wikipedia look stupid, if a bunch of editors here came up with a different conclusion about the name of that flag. I see no logical reason to keep this article pointing to Union Flag, the redirect. I will give it a day for sensible objections to be raised here, and if none, then revert Pete/Skyring's revert of my change. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll throw in my 2c worth. Here in Australia, I was taught the term "Union Jack" at school, as were all my siblings and friends. I've never heard the term "Union Flag" outside of Wikipedia. Any Aussie or Brit I've spoken to has used "Union Jack". My only flag book, "The Australian National Flag", an official government publication, states: "The Australian National Flag has a dark blue field with the Union Jack occupying the upper hoist ...".

Alas, debates in Wikipedia about which term is "correct" or "more common" are typically skewed because a larger than usual percentage of those arguing are flag enthusiasts, or vexillologists, with a larger than usual knowledge of flag terminology. Place the same question in a poll on the front page of Wikipedia and you'd probably get a clearer answer of common usage. The clincher is Google Ngram Viewer, which shows that "Union Jack" clearly outranks "Union Flag" in British English.

With the debate concluded elsewhere, let's embrace the verdict and implement the same change here, ensuring that all references to the British flag in this article use the term "Union Jack". With Australia Day almost upon us, let's get our flag page in order promptly. Ian Fieggen (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You make a strong point about vexllogists knowing what they are talking about, and the general population not. The general population looks to Wikipedia for correct information. We should give it to them, not some half-arsed but widely-believed furphy. We should write our articles such that the experts on the subject smile approvingly rather than wince and shake their heads over Wikipedian stupidity. --Pete (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you ignore much of what I say. That argument simply doesn't belong here. It belongs at Union Jack. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual I read your contributions carefully and respond to what i consider relevant. This may not match your own priorities, but hey, we're all different. On that note, i think that quality of information is important in an encyclopaedia. So often I read a newspaper and find that a journalist, when writing on a subject where I have some personal knowledge, makes all kinds of mistakes. These make me wince. Wikipedia shouldn't make people wince. Do you have any comments about quality of information in our encyclopaedia? Should it be accurate and informative, or should we just be Google? --Pete (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I won't play your wikilawyering and forum shopping games. I have presented my case. Respond to it, or give up now. Your argument belongs at Union Jack. And I think you're too late to play there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you follow your own advice. How can you expect others to answer your questions when you not only refuse to answer theirs but chuck in some personal abuse for good measure? Be reasonable. Please. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked no questions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If the community has decided the article should be at Union Jack, then that's how we should refer to it here. If we are to refer to it as Union Flag, then a move discussion should be started at Talk:Union Jack. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the comments here talk about what does a vexillologist know or say when it comes to this term and who to believe. As I said before, I am a vexillologist and both terms are used in publications across the world. Do I want our word to be gospel; no. There has been times we been wrong. Now, about this term specifically, Canadian Heritage describes the flag as the "Royal Union Flag" but adds the caveat that the Union Jack is the more popular term. After just one use of the Royal Union Flag, it goes back to the Union Jack in the description. Even in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Ontario officially use the Union Jack in their legislation. New Zealand uses the Union Jack, but in any legislation I was sent, Jack is used. I honestly believe the Union Jack would be a better term, not only because of what is used in legislation in the Commonwealth but also just the common usage by persons worldwide. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend a direct link to the article-in-question, thus avoiding re-directs & pipe-links. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong support. The "Union Jack" vs "Union Flag" debate is finished on the page in question. Let's embrace the outcome. If it ever reverts, we can also revert. Ian Fieggen (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. HiLo48, you should have discussed your changes first, as you were going against the existing consensus in this article. I don't like the change, because I think it's a sop to casual rather than correct usage, but I'm not going to stand in the way of wikiprocedure. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support the direct linking of the article in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Federation, 1 January 1901: "Unofficial Australian Flag"

What would have been the "unofficial Australian flag" referred to here, in Gavin Souter's Lion and Kangaroo. It couldn't have been the Union Jack/Flag, as that would have been what was normally flying over the Mansion House. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could it have been the Federation Flag? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Assuming such a beast was available in London. I wonder how we can find out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoist vs Left

I'm new to Wikipedia, and this is one of the first articles I've ever edited so I realize that my revision might not stick (considering how high profile this page is), but I wanted to quickly explain my rationale anyways. In the first paragraph, I changed the word "hoist" to "left" since it seems pointless to explain a technical term with another technical term, especially considering that both meanings of the word are commonly used in reference to flags. I also included a link to the Glossary of vexillology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrThunderizer (talk • contribs) 07:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The "hoist" side is the half of the flag nearest the flagpole and is not always the left side. If you are looking at the back side of a flag, or at a flag that is hoisted with the flagpole to its right (the flag of Saudi Arabia for example), the hoist is at the right. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, I changed it back, but I left the link. MrThunderizer (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The 1927 mystery

Apparently the Australian Flag Society has discovered a blue looking flag in the official portrait of the opening of old parliament house. I would have thought they were a good enough source. I see they are mentioned in other articles. I've been following them in the media for the last 10 years.

Let's face it as to that blue flag in the official portrait. How could that remain a secret forever?

Jodyrootes (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with keeping secrets. As I've indicated in edit summaries and on your talk page, image galleries are discouraged and the edits that you have made are clearly the result of personal analysis by a Wikipedia editor, which is not permitted. Everything added to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia editors do not fall into that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note I am not a member or anything. I just subscribe to their offerings and here is the latest for your information:

“The 1927 Mystery Unravels” (12 July 2014) 2(1) Flag Breaking News (ISSN 2203-2118)

The seemingly unresolvable controversy over the type of Australian flags used at the 1927 opening ceremony of the second provisional parliament house in Canberra is now one step closer to being solved. The latest research being carried out by the Australian Flag Society shows that, contrary to previous claims that only red ensigns are depicted in the official portrait, the field of the flag flying vertically in the second position in the order of precedence is predominantly blue, and may either be shown as a Union Jack or a blue ensign. One of the flags flying from the flag poles standing vertically in front of the building also has something of a blue streak. Both artists have made small errors in detail, as Power has positioned one of the westernmost horizontal facade poles as turned 90 degrees to the front and depicted facing the crowd instead. Other photographs taken that day also appear to show a large Union Jack flying horizontally from another, lower facade pole also at the western end. However neither of these two features are in evidence in the lithograph as one would expect from the north westerly perspective chosen by the unknown artist.

Upon microscopic examination, the only hard evidence in at least one of the photographs taken that day seems to show a blue ensign draped behind the Union Jack. John Christian Vaughan, vexillographer and former CEO of the Royal Australian Historical Society, has ventured to say: “The Cross of St George on the Union Jack is red and of darker shade that the blue of St Andrew's Cross. It is interesting to note that the blue on the Union Jack matches the shade of Australian flag which, to my eye means that the Australian flag has a blue field not red which would have matched the shade of the red St George's Cross.”

The 1927 mystery deepens according to other corroboration as to the presence of red ensigns, with a correspondent for The West Australian reporting that: "The sunlight streamed through the crimson of drooping flags”. When one binds all the available evidence together, this strongly suggests that both Australian flag variants were present on this occasion. However the choice would likely have been one Power - who left behind the words “It was decided .. flags in red” - would have made alone, and the fact that there was no comment when the official rendition was unveiled is also considered revealing.

Jodyrootes (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Alleged emails are not reliable sources and the speculative nature of what is in the above is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Fringe theories seems to apply here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be quite firm in your resolve to delay the inevitable. I personally can't see what the problem will be except that I know what a shock to the system it often is when previous understandings start to buckle and fall by the wayside. An eloquent man of letters and resources with his finger on the pulse. I'm just the contributor wikipedia is looking for.

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the content that you added doesn't consist of something supported by the mainstream, which is why it isn't given the weight you'd like it to be given. It needs to be covered by more reliable sources and you can't add your own analysis. You seem to be missing these points. If I was advertising for a contributor, I'd have to count this against you and move onto the next applicant, or re-advertise. You do get a few points for enthusiasm though. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Folks think cinderella wore glass slippers. The fact of the blue flag has been discovered now. I suppose we can wait until a newspaper picks it up. It wont get up and go anywhere in the meantime. But I mean how much stuff on wikipedia is backed up by a reference to the Ausflag website? Are their more lazy scholars around? Cant afford a five buck jewelers microscope off ebay?

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And the other thing is, when it comes down to it, what makes Elizabeth Kwan's word any better than the flag society's? Especially as the latter are demonstrably correct? There could not actually be much mainstream interest in this one if nobody has ever noticed that solid blue flag in Septimus Powers portrait before. Once you mention it it doesnt even look red on the face of it.

Jodyrootes (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kwan's work is published on the Parliament of Australia website, so it has some credibility. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The most convincing thing about what the flag society are now saying is all that visual evidence that came with their latest bulletin and which you have removed from the article.

Jodyrootes (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The least convincing thing is that the Australian Flag Society would be the least independent and impartial body to have just happened on this alleged evidence that allegedly happens to support its somewhat absolute position. Summary: I really don't trust them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And Elizabeth Kwan is a neutral authority? I think you will find she mentioned the Australian Flag Society in her book. And I just re read it, she's not actually saying there were ONLY red ensigns. So we'll need a source for that.

Do one thing. Get an image of the portrait and blow it up and see for yourself. I think we'll put it back in won't we?

I've supplied a more recently authority than Kwan's 2006 book. And I don't think there will be too many future authorities saying Power only painted red ensigns now this genie is out of the bottle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.24.240 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jodyrootes (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So what did you make of it? As I say once your attention gets drawn to it it doesnt even begin to look largely red at all does it?

Id be intetested to know how any of those observations about the mistakes made by both artists are off the mark. Youd really have to say that flag society bulletin will go down as a very well researched addition to the body of knowledge.

What part of it arouses your suspicions exactly and Ill try to still your qualms?

Jodyrootes (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Do one thing. Get an image of the portrait and blow it up and see for yourself. I think we'll put it back in won't we?" - No, we certainly won't. That's original research and Wikipedia content is NOT allowed to be based on original research. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is asking anyone to do original research. The flag society have already done the hard yards for us. There is not one suspicion about the contents of their bulletin which cannot be erased by a preponderance of the evidence. And the evidence at this stage is clear and convincing there were blue ensigns being flown. Our understanding of what happened that day has been turned on its head since the 1980s. I don't know how Ausflag types can say anyone else if stuck in the past when all the cutting edge research is coming out of the other side. Is the revelation there is a blue ensign in the official portrait really the end of your world? What's your stake in it?

This always was going to come out and the flag society bulletin was a good a place as any in my honest opinion. However I suppose we can wait until a newspaper writes a story about it so as to give some people time to get adjusted to the new reality.

58.168.24.240 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've looked up the relevant sources again. Apart from Harold Scruby, who is actually saying Power ONLY painted red ensigns?

Harold Scruby would tell you anything if it suited his purposes. And if you want to use him as a source why not the flag society?

Jodyrootes (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I remember something. When the lithograph by the unknown artist showing only blue ensigns first entered circulation in 2006. There were critics back then and even today saying it is retouched! Just had to be. That's what the flat earthers said when they were first confronted by images of this little world of our taken from space.

Jodyrootes (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No they didn't. Please drop the commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course people were. I took screen captures of it on facebook. But I'm not saying that equals anyone or anywhere responsible.

How about this. Looking at the present state of that section of the article. Let's put the image of the solid blue flag painted by Septimus Power back underneath the lithograph. Then we can have a caption under that image. And a footnote from that caption explaining who published it, when, where, what they had to say about it etc. And that will be pending any newspaper articles or books that may appear in the future. We could do it that way temporarily on the basis that I admit this thing has only just started.

For to continue to deny the existence of that blue flag, well how can you?

Jodyrootes (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it has hit social media. I think members of the flag society would be entitled to be a bit upset about what they read here. Just recently they have achieved more publicity than any flag organisation in Australia. It's all good new material they have on their hands to start with which helps.

Jodyrootes (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the running commentary. What social media says and does has no relevance to what we include in Wikipedia articles. You are not helping your case, nor contributing anything that will make this a better article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Im quite happy to wait until next week. You dont appreciate my timely efforts at all do you? All I want to do is bring this article up to speed.

Jodyrootes (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cant you understand the days of the official portrait being any use to ausflag are over by at least 24 hours?

Jodyrootes (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until next week then. In the meantime, we can learn to indent properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You know the lid has been blown off it. You have a source. The visual evidence is staring you right im the face. And you still deny it after being confronted with the truth. Not only that you are going to drag your feet right down to the last grain of sand in the hourglass. Its pathetic isnt it?

Jodyrootes (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the obsession, and the personal comments. Take yourself away from Australian flag issues for a while. Look at how the rest of Wikipedia works. Edit some entirely different articles. You may learn some useful strategies for getting more of what you want here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I just cant see why its not a good enough source. Maybe you are holding your breath waiting for Harold Scruby to acknowledge his mistake? Why cant people read about it here when its being discussed on facebook as we speak? Cant we just add more sources as it bubbles away over the years?

Jodyrootes (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

FAR needed

There is some uncited text, numerous MOS errors, external jumps in the text, and poor prose (sample: It also must sit first (typically, left) where more than one flag is used. For this reason the Collingwood Football Club had to reverse its logo (now current as of 2004).) Is anyone willing or able to tune the article back up to FA standards to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More than two months later, is there no one willing/able to help (see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Flag of Australia/archive1). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120411200500/http://www.roymorgan.com:80/news/polls/2010/4495/ to http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4495/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Colours

The colours used in the main file (File:Flag of Australia.svg), especially the red, look nothing like the flag as it is actually used in Australia. In so far as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is misleading in this respect. File:Flag of Australia (converted).svg is infinitely more accurate, and should be made the main file. Just because the government specifies inaccurate RGB colours doesn't mean we follow them. There's a longstanding preference for common names and usages over "official" prescriptions on Wiki. It's simply not appropriate to have a major nation represented on Wiki by a flag with colours that are unfamiliar to any of its citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.62.169 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Although personally I'm no fan of the overly bright red produced by the official spec, it's a bit strong to call the colours "unfamiliar". With the exception of actual flags printed on actual cloth, on which the red looks fairly dull, just about everywhere else that the flag is printed (eg. souvenirs, cereal boxes, Australia Day gear) it appears with a similarly bright red to the flag on Wikipedia. The main downside on Wikipedia is when the Australian flag appears alongside flags of other Commonwealth nations, in which case ours does look out of place.

If we did decide to stray from the official spec, this introduces another problem of getting consensus on "accurate" colours, particularly given that every computer screen renders colours slightly differently. I can just see an edit war with various people trying to push their opinion as to which colours best represent the flag in real life. Sticking with the official spec is thus probably the best option. You could, of course, lobby the government to have the official spec changed! Ian Fieggen (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flag of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602113954/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=20 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206070055/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A1994-06-02%3BSEQ_NUM%3A27%3B to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A1994-06-02%3BSEQ_NUM%3A27%3B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321133956/http://www.australianflag.org.au/review-of-reviews/ to http://www.australianflag.org.au/review-of-reviews/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Flag of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020014151/http://www.australianflag.org.au/federal-flag-and-seal/ to http://www.australianflag.org.au/federal-flag-and-seal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317195711/http://www.australianflag.org.au/flag-day-september-3/ to http://www.australianflag.org.au/flag-day-september-3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219054232/http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm to http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Australian flag at war

Realistically 90% or more of Australian flag folklore is rooted in the Anzac tradition. So what do we all think about a separate section where this stuff can be all explored in more detail?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Australian flag in folk art=

Is there any enthusiasm out there for a section entitled "Australian flag in folk art"? It would be an especially good place to put material that isn't already covered by the Australian flag at war.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude, but a look at this article's edit history shows that, apart from yourself there is little enthusiasm among anyone in the entire Wikipedia community for big changes and additions to this article. I really suggest you pause in your attention to Australian flag related articles, and get out there in the rest of Wikipedia, to see what is normal. Even just a look at flag articles for other countries may give you some idea, but a broader perspective would be even better. I'm sure you have something to contribute in other areas, and it would make you a better editor. HiLo48 (talk)

There's already been big changes to it though.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

see MOS:POPCULT -- the section Australian flag at war would be putting WP:UNDUE weight to information about the flag. Gnangarra 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Photograph of opening of old parliament house

How about we place an image gallery in this section and restore the black and white photograph of the opening of old parliament house which is a centre of contention here. I know Dr Elizabeth Kwan said in her seminal "Flag and Nation" that the photographs taken that day are inclusive. But in relation that that particular snap no less and authority that John Vaughan, who has a good eye one him, reckons he can discern the difference between red and blue ensign.

For the length of time folks have been debating this that wouldn't be going overboard would it?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTIMAGE. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Even so after having read about this enormous contention in Australian vexillology and this black and white photograph that apparently sheds some light on it already in the article, I'm interested to see what it looks like now and I probably won't be the last reader to do so.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

These portraits and lithographs are one thing. But that photograph is the one thing that I can see out there that's what you might call hard evidence. What the correspondent who reported there being "crimson flags" had to say is very interesting too but that's quoted right in there. 14:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan (talk • contribs)

your point here is a original research please take care in only reliable sources not your opinion when discussnig matters. Gnangarra 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose Dr Elizabeth Kwan made the claim in her seminal work that none of the photographs taken that day are conclusive. However there has since been dissent from John Vaughan of the Australian National Flag Association. So if we can find the link where Vaughan ventured to say there was at least one blue ensign present that day that's not original research. There has been some reference to it in reliable secondary sources. This is what I'm saying. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Defaced Australian flag variants

If we can find a further verifiable source for the prime ministerial cars flags what about restoring this section? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

no this is covered in the daughter article, if anything most of the other sections need to reduce there is too much gumpf totally irrelevant to the article. Gnangarra 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

What about the prime ministerial car flags? Someone probably when to all the trouble creating that image just for this article. Aussieflagfan (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It is in the daughter article, its also in PM related articles its trivial that someone over laid the flags with the crest to put on the PM's car or that Border force put its name on the flag. Such trivial information should be relegated to a standing less than the individual state flag in other words its WP:UNDUE Gnangarra 07:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

For example you wouldn't expect the presidential car flag to be mentioned in the US flag article because it's not a defaced Australian flag though is it? Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Australian flag at war

Is there any reason there can't be at least some imagery in this section? As anyone can see by the number of citations and the interest in the subject both historically and to the present, this section is going to be one of the central attractive points of this whole article. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the flag, its development, its usage and the legislation around it. Imagery and a focus on military would put WP:UNDUE weight on that specific area, it would also violate WP:NPOV and could be consider as trivial. Gnangarra 09:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I realise most of the images are available at the links that have been provided. But as you can see 90 per cent or more of Australian flag folk lore is rooted in the Anzac tradition. It's frankly amazing to me that it's taken until 2018 for Wikipedia to give this subject the full treatment it deserves. For too long this article has been held back by people with administrator privileges who are a law unto themselves who appear to know precisely nothing about the subject matter.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And this may I note is further reflected in the number of specimens in the "Centenary and other notable flags" section that do have to do are with the Anzac tradition.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The article has been held back by nobody. Stop attacking other editors. That will get you blocked. I won't criticise your interest and knowledge in the area. It's astounding. But do get some perspective here. The reason nobody else has contributed the way you have is that nobody else cares anywhere near as much as you. This is neither good nor bad. It just is. Please accept it. HiLo48 (talk)

Up until now that's apparently been the case. But that's the good thing about Wikipedia getting new blood through all the time. It's certainly taken this article to the next level. It's a hum dinger compared to what it was. Previously it didn't even say anything about the Australian moon flag if you can believe that. Even after all these years. That's probably one of the reasons why I've heard so many complaints about it. I see that some articles on the flags of other nations had sections on notable specimens long ago. For the centenary of Australian flag in 2001 the governor-general gave a speech where he said that for the ordinary common folk the history of the Australian flag is all about the Anzac tradition. Trust me it's going to be the central attractive point of this whole article.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Consider WP:OWN, andWP:POINT your last statement makes both very likely reason to see your editing end Gnangarra 14:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless there you have it from a previous GG that the relatively short history of Australia's chief national symbol is nearly all about the Anzac tradition. And that has to be relevant to any consideration of whether there would be undue emphasis at work. It's going to be one of the main reasons folks come here is to find out more about the Australian flag at war is all I'm trying to say. That's the reality of the situation.

With that in mind for the lead section to the Australian flag at war section what about putting that photograph which appeared in The Australian newspaper back in the 1990s of the prime minister and opposition leader having a heated argument in parliament about that very same subject?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's all being done in good faith with the over all visitor experience in mind mate. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the photo of the heated exchange to which I refer here: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/13356309

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The caption could be "Prime Minister Paul Keating and Opposition Leader Alexander Downer during a parliamentary debate over the Australian flag at war, 2 June 1994." Then what follows for our readers is an assortment of the main facts they should know about this subject which the have not already been told elsewhere in the article. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's another idea. The blue ensign is but one flag that has been employed by the Australian military. How about a broader article entitled "Flags of the Anzac tradition" where we can explore them all and give the subject the full treatment it deserves? Aussieflagfan (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a seriously better idea. Stop editing Australian flag related articles for a month. Go off and look at some other articles on Wikipedia to gain some perspective about what really belongs. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Let's try to identify and address constructively whatever issues there may be with the article with a view to removing the cleanup tag. If it refers to any content I have added then that content has stood for a little while now. On the face of it this article appears to be extremely well referenced throughout. Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been far too much editing by just one person, inevitably leading to a bias in the direction of what that person thinks is important. Give others time to get involved (there is no rush), and get out and look at some other articles yourself!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's might be good advice. But how wide are these rules though? It's just like saying no Australian has to right to contribute to this article because there might be a conflict of interest. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)