Talk:Flag of Antarctica

WikiEdu assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 18 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobinQAQ (article contribs).

Untitled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Flags of Antarctica — Flags of Antarctica → Flag of Antarctica – The title is left over from when the article was about the design proposals shown in the pictures on the page. Keeping in line with all the other articles on flags, the title should have the singular "Flag" instead of the plural "Flags." Since Flag of Antarctica has more than one edit, this page cannot be moved without an administrator's help. PBP 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support, for consistency with other articles. Jll 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move it back?

I'm not quite sure why the move discussed above was carried out. PBP states that: "The title is left over from when the article was about the design proposals shown in the pictures on the page." As far as I can tell the article is still about those, with the addition of a section on territorial flags. There is no one accepted 'flag of Antarctica', so the title is misleading, and shouldn't necessarily be consistent with other flag articles because the situation isn't the same here. There are several flags connected in some way with Antarctica, so 'flags of Antarctica' would seem the appropriate title. Anyone want to move it back? 86.136.1.31 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Antarctica / Antarctic Treaty

According to Flags of the World, the Antarctic Treaty DOES have a flag and that it's used as the official emblem of Antarctica. [1] [2] I think that we should change File:Flag of Antarctica.svg; the current flag is just a proposal (ok, it's widely used) but at least the dark-blue flag of the Treaty has some official characteristics. --B1mbo (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one can be viewed at the Antarctica Overseas Exchange Office website, what is it?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Territorial flags section

I restored the Territorial flags section. Unless there's something I'm missing here, it's removal was overkill. A {{unreferenced section}} will do.

These aren't refs, but here are the Flag of the British Antarctic Territory, and Flag of Magallanes articles. Also the List of Argentine flags article includes info on the Tierra del Fuego flag, and it's the flag the Tierra del Fuego article itself shows. File:Flag of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands.svg is used all over WP, including in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Plain white flag?

I've a recollection of seeing a plain white flag used to represent Antarctica. One such instance is The Usborne Book of World Geography where it gives the highest mountain on each continent. I think I might have seen it somewhere else but I can't remember, but I don't suppose this book is the only place it's ever been used. Can anyone provide some insight? — Smjg (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dave Hamilton Flag?

I noticed the Dave Hamilton proposal recently reappeared on the page, but I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough to be included here. I know it's mentioned on the FOTW page, but I haven't encountered any evidence that it ever flew as a flag. The original issuers of the souvenir "dollar bill" it was originally printed on have since removed it. I've deleted the flag from the page for now, but I'd love to hear others' thoughts. Since there are hundreds of Antarctic flag proposals, I think it's important to establish a threshold for what's included and what's not. Federalwafer (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

FOTW is run by volunteer editors (not unlike this wiki). I would not consider it to meet WP:RS.Garuda28 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 18 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobinQAQ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 18 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RobinQAQ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Country data Antarctica (seeking flag consensus)

Currently, the Country data Antarctica template and related templates (i.e. Template:Flag and its derivatives/transclusions, etc) use Graham Bartram's design as the main flag for Antarctica with Whitney Smith's design listed as the "alt" variant (this flag is not even currently listed on the main article here, which brings into question notability), although currently it appears the "True South" flag is the only one which is formally recognized by members of the Antarctic Treaty System. There have been two attempts to reach a consensus at Template talk:Country data Antarctica in which either no other users participated or there were no objections lodged. As such, I want to see if I can get a consensus here for one or more of the following changes:

• Changing the main flag under Country data Antarctica from Bartram's flag to the "True South" flag per its status as more officially recognized
• Removing Whitney Smith's design as "alt" variant due to lack of use
• Instating Bartram's flag as "alt" variant due to its representation as the main Antarctica flag emoji in several operating systems, as well as possibly using the flag of the Antarctic Treaty System as another variant with the identifier "ats".

Also pinging @Garuda28 and Federalwafer: due to their participation in a prior discussion above. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I support that Garuda28 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I also support that. Federalwafer (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for the input! Do any other users have any further comments? @Smjg posted a message a few years back on the talk page here, do you want to add anything? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. As much as I think Whitney Smith's design deserves credit, that it's been removed from the article on at least two occasions suggests that that there are doubts as to its notability. On this basis, it probably shouldn't be one of only two flags given in this template.

We can't deny that nobody runs Antarctica and as such it has no official flag. But if we need one, True South is the best one to use on the basis that it's officially recognised. As such, I'm inclined to agree with your first two proposals. But I'm not sure about the third one, as Graham Bartram's design doesn't appear to have any official status with the ATS or any other organisation. Hmm.... — Smjg (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your concern about the Bartram flag,@Smjg:. I don't know if there's a protocol on this, but looking around not all flags on country data templates seem to be official (e.g. Template:Country_data_Martinique). Federalwafer (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That's true. But that isn't to say Graham Bartram's design is necessarily the best unofficial one to use. One might argue that the ATS flag is a better choice. But then again, I can see a possible counter-argument that the ATS flag represents the international agreement concerning the chunk of land rather than the chunk of land itself. So I'm not settled one way or the other now. Let's see what people think. But the ATS flag ought to be included in the template one way or another. — Smjg (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging editors in this discussion as the consensus is being revisited in the RfC below. Please comment if interested. @HapHaxion, Garuda28, and Smjg: Federalwafer (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on main flag used in the country data template

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was the added third option to not use any flag icon on the template. The main reasoning for no icon is that there is no official flag for Antartica. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Which flag should be the main one used in Template:Country data Antarctica (Antarctica)? Should we continue using the current "True South" flag ("Option A"), or revert to the previously used Graham Bartram design 🇦🇶 ("Option B")? Update: As many editors have !voted to Avoid using flag icon templates for Antarctica entirely, I am adding this as a third option.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option B + avoid using flag icon templates for Antarctica entirely as nominator (see below for the second half of this !vote). There's next to no sourcing for the True South flag. There are four sources cited to claim that it's being used: one of them is a real article which interviews the designer about the process of coming up with the flag (which is fine but doesn't verify the claim that it's being used), one of them is a Facebook link, one of them is an Instagram link, and one of them is a scam website that tells me I'm the five billionth user and I won a prize. I'll be deleting that one from the article immediately. The other sources for the true south flag include a verbatim copy-paste of the interview article on a different website and the True South flag's own website. There's not even enough sources to establish notability, much less establish that it's the one we should be displaying to all readers. There was very little discussion before changing it to the True South flag aside from claiming without sources that "it is more officially recognized" and that it's "the only one formally recognized by members of the Antarctic Treaty System." There is not a single source verifying that any institution — much less any nation of the ATS — officially recognizes the novel True South flag in any capacity. Reverting to the more verifiably used Bartram design seems like the best thing to do here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option B since it appears to be the mostly widely used. I've personally only seen Option B as the flag before. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Option A as True South seems to be more widely used per discussion below. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flag icon templates for Antarctica entirely. There is no official flag. The use of a flag next to Antarctica in contexts where national flags appear is inherently misleading. Flag icons are overused anyway and I do not think the guidelines on appropriate and inappropriate use (MOS:FLAG) are met for Antarctica. In particular, it would be misguided to think that consistency or something demands that a table with national flag icons next to most entries automatically needs to have a flag icon next to every entry. Almost all uses of the Antarctica flag icon template are in such tables/lists. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that it's largely unnecessary to even have a flag icon template for Antarctica, but this might imply a deletion discussion of Template:Country data Antarctica, which is probably out of the scope of this RfC. For better or worse, there are a lot of instances of this template on the encyclopedia, and it's best that this template doesn't display to readers an obscure and largely unsourced flag design.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't mean to get in the way of the original and well-posed RfC question – discussion should continue. (For what it's worth, I concur with the point that the claims of official or formal recognition for the "True South" flag seem to be misleading and lacking in a verifiable basis.) In the bigger picture I think recommending the removal of uses of the template in mainspace is the best outcome, and while that doesn't answer the RfC question, it's relevant to the RfC in the sense that it would leave the RfC question without much practical significance anymore. Currently there are 269 mainspace uses (WhatLinksHere) which is non-negligible but not too many either. (Even small island countries' flags have an order of magnitude more uses.) I have no real opinion on what people do with it in userspace or other namespaces; it doesn't necessary have to go to TfD and it could be deprecated from articles only. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely. There is no official flag and it is misleading to use an unofficial one in this way. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option B No Antarctic flag of official, but none is so widely known as this one. AnneDant87 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option B. The flag is critically symbolic of the continent of Antartica. If any flag should be used, and it should, the blue and white flag is best. SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it more "critically symbolic" for Antarctica to have a flag than any other geographical location? North America doesn't have an "official" flag. Asia doesn't have an "official" flag. The Atlantic Ocean doesn't have an "official" flag. The Connecticut River doesn't have an "official" flag. Ravenswing 02:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option A Please refer to the consensus reached in the section above. Several sources about the use of True South were deleted in a reversion between that discussion and this one, but I restored them. True South does seem to be promoted, but it is still the most widely used and officially recognized flag according to any sources I could find. Federalwafer (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  While ref 15 is a good source, I couldn't find where it says that True South has been used by National Antarctic Programs, Antarctic nonprofits, and expedition teams. If this claim was validated and no further issues arise I'd switch to option a. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  For the sake of accuracy I'll mention that the sources you've added are different from the ones I've removed, and most of the new ones are better quality. The ones I removed were social media posts and a scam website. Ref 15 is good, but this is currently the only one that mentions the flag flying anywhere in Antarctica, so I still feel that it's far too early to come to the conclusion that this flag is the most widely used, and it's still not correct to state that it has been "officially recognized."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu There are two mentions, one in the text: "So far, the flag has been quite successful, too, adopted and flown by various camps and research stations." and again in the audio version around the 45 minute mark where they say "It was actually really quickly adopted by various Antarctic nonprofits and expedition teams, so it's already been flown in camps and research stations and by fans around the world who've never even been to Antarctica."

  @Vanilla Wizard There are some new sources, but the reversion I was referring to was the one on 15 July. I agree with most of the deletions you made. Source 1 lists some of the countries that have adopted it-- Bulgaria, Turkey, the Czech Republic-- and has photos of it at the French and Colombian stations. Source 14 is from the USA Antarctic Program and shows the flag at the South Pole. Federalwafer (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That source does in fact say "Several countries [...] have adopted it", but it unfortunately only briefly states this without describing what this means. Does it mean that a decision was made on behalf of the Bulgarian Antarctic Institute as an example to officially recognize the flag? If it simply means that researchers from Bulgaria flew the flag, then this is still a good indication that the flag has been used, but I wouldn't word that as "Bulgaria adopted it" and it wouldn't be any more remarkable than any other time that any other flag was flown at a research station in Antarctica.

Source 14 is good, that definitely is the True South symbol on that marker, though it also mentions that a new marker is designed every year, so I'm curious to know if previous markers have resembled other proposed Antarctic flags. The markers used in 2015, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, and 1997 featured the outline of Antarctica, but it'd be OR of me to assume that's an intentional reference to either the Antarctic Treaty System or Bartram flag (although those two are almost the same design and the design of both is just the map of Antarctica). Still an interesting fact worth keeping in the article.

I do appreciate that you've added a lot of quality sources verifying the notability of the True South flag, but I'm still on the fence about displaying it as the main one. If the metric for "being recognized" is "being flown by researchers", then it would be very untrue to say that the True South flag is the only one that has been recognized, as the same could be said about all of the others. It's also the case that the ATS flag is the closest thing to an "official" design given that the ATS is a binding agreement between nations governing human activity on the continent, while the Bartram flag remains by far the most commonly recognized one and is used as an emoji on all platforms. So I have to say that I don't support edits that modify the lede to only mention the True South flag and phrase it as if it's the "only officially recognized flag." We should either mention none of them or all of them in the lede. There is evidence that in recent years the True South flag's popularity and use has increased, this is true, but what is not true is suggesting that this is the only flag design to have received "recognition."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the adoption is accurate as I understand it. I found another source that quotes the director of the Turkish Antarctic program as saying “Leaving our differences aside, let’s unite under the True South flag in order to explore Antarctica with science while protecting and promoting its unique beauty and nature.” There is another article in the journal of a flag association (Vexillum), but I can only access it through a library membership. It quotes other government officials about their adoption (e.g. in the case of Bulgaria '“Antarctica is a unique continent in which all the countries in the world live and work in the spirit of science, peace, and friendship. They all have their own flags, but their solidarity and collaboration is represented by the True South flag,” said Dr. Christo Pimpirev, Director of the Bulgarian Antarctic Institute.' Director of Czech programs are also quoted.) I tried to cite it as a source earlier, but I guess I can't because it's behind a subscription wall.

I appreciate you adding more sources for the notoriety of the Graham Bartram flag, but they don't seem to meet WP:RS. Both seem to be republications of an earlier version of this Wikipedia article, and both confuse the Bartram flag with the Emblem of the Antarctic Treaty. (The treaty emblem was officially adopted in 2002, not the Bartram flag.) I have tried to find more sources about its notability, but I've only been able to find mention about it flying on the one trip that's already mentioned in the article.

From everything I've been able to find, True South still seems to be by far the most notable flag. I do not think mentioning it in the lede shows preference, but I would like to gain consensus here before making any more edits to the page. Federalwafer (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources added to the Bartram section were not forks of previous versions of this Wikipedia page; they contain significantly more text than can be found in either the current or former revisions of the Wikipedia article. I also do not think they confused the two flags; the treaty flag was adopted in 2002, but the Bartram flag became more used 2002 despite being designed in the 90s.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Per source 6, a primary source by the tourist who brought the flag on his trip, "Graham Bartram’s unofficial 1995 flag for Antarctica first flew over the White Continent on the last day of 2002" so it is not possible that it became popular later in the year. The article also states that there was one seller of the flag in 2002 who sold fewer than 100 flags. I will try to find more reputable sources, but these are definitely incorrect. Federalwafer (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the issue was with my wording, not with the sources; one source stated (correctly) that the Bartram flag flew over the continent in 2002, and another stated that other bases raised the flag in solidarity. What I missed was that the source says they were raised "at the same time", not "after." I'll be reinstating these sources. Further discussion about this should be in its own section, as this is getting a little off topic and creating clutter for whoever closes this to parse through.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely. Obviously. Super Ψ Dro 14:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Since a lot of !voters have suggested "avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely" and it seems the most likely option to achieve some sort of consensus here, I've added it as one of the options mentioned in the RfC question. I would like to clarify that I also support this third option in addition to supporting Option B. While I still think it's better to use the more recognizable Bartram flag if / when we display a flag for Antarctica (its use as the Antarctica flag emoji on all platforms is another compelling reason to prefer it), I also have to agree with the editors who've said it's inappropriate to display a flag for Antarctica in articles full stop.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

While not using a flag is a viable option (assuming it's technically feasible), I do not think emoji use is appropriate justification for choosing the Bartram flag since emojis are not verifiable sources. The AQ emoji was created before True South was designed, and emojis often feature the incorrect flag. (Mayotte ^{WP emoji}, Réunion ^{WP emoji}, and French Guiana ^{WP emoji} , to name a few.) Federalwafer (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to compare Antarctica to Réunion or Mayotte. The French flag is, without any doubts, the one and only official flag of Réunion. This is an inhabited territory governed by France, and France alone gets to decide what flag is official. Antarctica does not have an official flag. It's not possible for the Antarctica flag emoji to be incorrect in the same sense. The flag emoji used to represent Antarctica is unofficial, and so is every other flag design for Antarctica. It's also of no relevance that it was adopted as an emoji before the True South flag was designed, as flag emojis are updated whenever a country changes their flag.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will request editors to keep in mind WP:V when casting votes. The RfC is not about which flag you personally find most recognizable, but which flag has received the most official recognition. As mentioned in comments above, several sources about the adoption and use of Option A have been restored and added since this RfC was opened. I will also point out that the CIA World Factbook uses True South to represent Antarctica. Federalwafer (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I believe that both flags meet WP:V. Both flags have flown on Antarctica from research bases, and there is no official flag, nor can there ever be one. So this is a unique situation where we're more or less applying COMMONNAME logic not to an article name, but to a flag. The flag should be verifiably used and verifiably recognizable to readers. This discussion is about which flag is being used, and the fact that one of them is being used to represent the continent on all devices is an excellent example of widespread use. Mentioning the emoji as a reason to lean in favor of the Bartram design is perfectly reasonable. Courtesy side note: I have unbolded Option A from your above comment to prevent confusion as it could have looked like a second !vote. I've also refactored one of my own comments to do the same.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• I hate that this is vering towards and "argument from authority", but option B is the flag that all the tech and mobile companies use for flag code AQ. That sort of broad standardization on one of our options is a pretty strong argument, and I'd need to see some pretty hefty n-grams or some such broad demonstration that another flag is definitely the one that is recognized out in the real world. I think that everyone who supports flag emojis agreeing on one Antartica flag is pretty persuasive about what people expect. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. I do not think appeal to authority is inappropriate here since flags always receive their official status from the recognition of an authority. But I don't think emojis are the authority to appeal to here as they are not a reputable source. Consider the flag for Afghanistan, which has also changed recently but has not been updated on emoji systems. (See above for other examples.)

  The authority in consideration should be the governments that operate in Antarctica and/or are part of the Antarctic Treaty. Option A has been used officially by at least the National Antarctic Programs of Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, France, Ecuador, Turkey, Russia, UK, and USA^[1][2] in the last two years. And more reputable sources on flag use such as the CIA World Factbook use True South to represent Antarctica. Federalwafer (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  See Federalwafer's reply above. Emojis are not appropriate justification, they are sometimes incorrect and the AQ code was created before the True South flag was designed. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely. There is no recognized flag. Garuda28 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely. None are official. JackWilfred (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely It's wildly inappropriate to use the True South design as currently used in the template as if it were official. It received some news coverage as a new design merely a year ago and does not have adequately recognized status to implement this way, and per above it's inherently misleading to put adjacent to other official flags. Perhaps in the future. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If "Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely" is the determined outcome, the True South flag can be moved into the variants section of the template with the other notable proposals. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely, obviously. Antarctica is not a country and has no officially recognised flag. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. It is not a vehicle for promotion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flag icon templates for Antarctica entirely: Good grief. Antarctica has no official flag. Antarctica has no statutory body with the authority to designate one. Fourteen Wikipedia editors (those who've registered a firm opinion so far, including myself) have no bloody business to arrogate to ourselves the authority to decide for the world what Antarctica's flag should be. Period. Ravenswing 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: We're deciding it for wikipedia, not the world. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  And to the degree that Wikipedia's the world's leading encyclopedia, widely cited and with bits from articles routinely inserted in news pieces, you cannot credibly claim that a decision made here is not going to be treated as inerrant fact by altogether too many people, agencies and entities. You don't get a vote as to what the "flag of Antarctica" is. Neither do I. Neither do any of us. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Ravenswing 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely Per everyone else, it does not have an official flag, so we can't imply it does. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Closure requested - The consensus is pretty overwhelming at this point. The option to use no flag at all has 10 !votes, compared to 4 in favor of "Option B" and 2 in favor of "Option A." Discussion has been ongoing for six weeks, and it's highly unlikely that leaving this RFC open any longer will result in a different outcome. It would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved editor could close this. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely — None of the proposed flags are used by Antarctica's claimants and Wikipedia should not be giving undue weight or preference to any unofficial flag. Having a flag icon in the first place is misleading as it could imply the existence of a de jure polity which encompasses the entirety of Antarctica. Yue🌙 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Avoid using flags in Antarctica templates entirely There is no suitable flag, because no Government of Antarctica, government-in-exile, indigenous people or other body with standing has adopted a flag or even exists to do so. Displaying a flag is also misleading, because it implies such a body. NebY (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Closure Requested Somebody please, stop adding new !votes to the overwhelming consensus and close this.

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would need someone with the template editor permission to apply anything. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking consensus on notoriety of Bartram flag

Per discussion in RfC above, I'm seeking consensus on the recent inclusion of a claim about the Bartram flag "flying at most bases on the continent."

Currently the cited sources for the claim are from worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com.

I vote to remove this claim and the sources as they are directly contradicted by more credible sources and do not seem to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The first source claims "In 2002, most bases on the continent started flying this flag alongside that of their own countries." The second source claims "The first time the flag was hoisted over the continent by the editor of the popular magazine “The Ravan” – Ted Kaye in 2002. At the same time, scientific bases, which are present on the continent, also raised the flag in solidarity."

The primary source written by the person who brought the flag to Antarctica as a tourist names the one base the flag flew at in 2002, which was the Brazilian base already mentioned in the article. (It also flew at the museum mentioned in the article.) Further, the flag was raised for the first time in Antarctic on Dec. 31, and the subsequent station the author visited (but did not fly the flag at) were in 2003, casting further doubt on the articles' claims. The primary source also mentions fewer than 100 flags were sold worldwide at the time of the article's writing, a claim substantiated by another source that states the flag was never frequently used on or off Antarctica.

The above sources also include other factual errors regarding the Bartram flag, including the claim that it was made official in 2002. According to the primary source, it was the emblem of the Antarctic Treaty, not the Bartram flag that was made official.

Tagging @Vanilla Wizard to share points in favor of inclusion, and tagging recently active editors for input. @SWinxy @Ornithoptera @Aaron Liu

Federalwafer (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the PDF provided, the sources were in fact accurate to state that it flew at several bases and expeditions in Antarctica, though I'm not confident about the wording of "most" bases. Some of the statements you've repeated throughout the discussion are contradicted by the source, namely that it flew for the first time on December 31st and that only one base (Brazil's) used the flag.

Interestingly, the PDF actually contradicts itself, though only slightly. It says Graham Bartram’s unofficial 1995 flag for Antarctica first flew over the White Continent on the last day of 2002. But it also says Figure 17 The first “official” raising of the Antarctica flag by any nation in Antarctica, 30 December 2002, by a Brazilian scientist at Ferraz. and Figure 14 Ted Kaye unfurls the Antarctica flag for the first time in Antarctica, on King George Island in the South Shetlands, 30 December 2002. December 30th is not the last day of the year. Not sure what explains this discrepancy, but December 30th appears multiple times throughout the PDF, so I'm confident that it wasn't December 31st. I can only assume that it was meant to say "on the second-to-last day of 2002", but I'll never know for sure.

The source also mentions the flag hanging from an Argentine research base, from the flagpole of a historical British base (though he raised the flag himself, the base's assistant commander accepted the flag), and from a Ukrainian expedition vessel as well as other vessels. The claim you quoted from the first source is largely correct (still unsure about the "most" wording) and corroborated by the PDF. The second source stating that other bases would raise the flag in solidarity is neither confirmed nor contradicted by the PDF.

It is also incorrect to state that "fewer than 100 flags were sold worldwide." What the source actually states is that, by 1998, years before the flag had flown over the continent, one specific flag vendor in Wisconsin named Rick Prohaska sold fewer than 100 flags. This is very different from stating that fewer than 100 flags were sold globally even following his visit to Antarctica, as you had suggested.

Having taken a closer look at the primary source, I'm more confident that the information currently presented in the article is verifiable. I will, however, change the language to something other than "most bases" flew the flag.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Going through the other places you mentioned:

● Argentine base- The primary source author held the flag himself while at the base which can be seen in the photo in the pdf. The source also specifies that the station is unmanned, so there would be no one else there to fly it.

● Historical British base- This is the museum that was already mentioned in earlier versions of the article. Port Lockroy has not been a research base since 1962. It reopened as a tourist site in 1996. It is operated by a nonprofit called the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust, not by the actual federal organization which operates British Antarctic stations. (Please see the British Antarctic Survey's site for verification.)

● Ukrainian vessel- I believe you are referring to the M/V Orlova, the cruise ship which the source author travelled on. As the article states, this is a vessel of Russian origin which was operated by Quark Expeditions, a commercial travel company that brought the author down as a tourist. It is not affiliated with any national Antarctic programs.

● Other vessels- I'm not sure what part of the source you're referencing here, but I could find no mention of any other vessel flying the flag.

As the primary source and the previous versions of this article state, the Bartram flag only flew at one actual research base, the Brazilian one. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but the claim that even "several bases" flying the flag is still incorrect. If you still have uncertainties, we can explore other options for dispute resolution. Federalwafer (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

At the time of this trip, the historic Port Lockroy was still managed and staffed by the British Antarctic Survey as it didn't change management to UK Antarctic Heritage until 2006, so the wording of "several" is not inaccurate. I'll have to double-check the Argentine base's staffing and the document's mentions of vessels when I'm more available to do so, but I also still feel that it does not contradict the contents of this primary source document for secondary sources to claim that other bases flew the flag than the ones mentioned here; while the primary source document is more thorough and offers more confirmation to anything it does mention, I don't know that I'd assume anything not explicitly stated in it to be untrue as I can't say it contains any information which makes the claims by the secondaries improbable or obviously questionable, either. (Though the document did explicitly mention at least two bases staffed by national Antarctic surveys accepting and flying the flag, so my last sentence was a moot point as I'm still comfortable with the current phrasing in the article)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Both the UKAHT and the British Antarctic Survey confirm that Port Lockroy has been run as a museum and staffed by UKAHT since 1996. 2006 is when it took over direct management. Once again, this was already clear in the article which states "On this trip, it flew at the Brazilian base Comandante Ferraz and the British museum at Port Lockroy."

As mentioned previously, the lack of mention of any other base in the primary source and the number of additional factual errors seem to make it clear that the sources you site for the claim about the Bartram flag flying at "several bases" are not reliable. Since we don't seem to be able to come to an agreement on this, I've brought it to the dispute resolution request board. Federalwafer (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As you are probably already aware by the time you read this, efforts at DRN (as well as the 3rd opinion noticeboard) were unsuccessful. If you still believe it to be critically important that this sentence stating that the Bartram flag flew at several bases in the early 2000s is removed, you still have the option of asking the reliable sources noticeboard as was suggested by the moderator, or starting a separate RFC about just that. But please, try to keep your goals focused going forward.

Without being overly harsh, I have to confess my frustrations with some of the decisions you took when trying to resolve this Bartram flag dispute. I was under the impression that your DRN thread was just going to be about this sentence we're discussing in this talk section, but it quickly spiraled into you trying to get every single change to the article that you wanted simultaneously without consensus, even going as far as trying to invalidate the flag template RFC, an RFC in which your preferred outcome is the one with the fewest number of !votes. First you extended the RFC (which would have likely closed by now if you hadn't), then you tried asking for the RFC to be "paused" by claiming that editors were misinformed when casting their !votes?

I am especially bothered by your jumping to the conclusion that if you were to succeed at getting a sentence about the Bartram flag being used in the early 2000s removed, that you would then automatically have permission to overhaul the lede of the article to say that the True South flag is the most important one. If you want the lede changed, start a talk discussion proposing your preferred version of it. I would be surprised to see a consensus in favor of it, given that you've been reprimanded by several editors in the past when trying to instate it, with one even accusing you of "cross-wiki POV-pushing."

TL;DR: If you want the sentence removed, focus your energies on the sentence. Unfocused discussion is unproductive. One thing at a time. Be aware that there is no forum or noticeboard on the encyclopedia where you can have the article overhauled without consensus. Consensus-building starts right here at the talk page; don't ask for additional things at DRN or any other noticeboard that were not already being discussed at the talk page (e.g. the lede).

I wasn't sure whether to post this reply here or at AN/I; posting it here is not an attempt at reducing its visibility

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have posted to the reliable sources noticeboard in relation to this discussion. I, too, would like to keep this discussion focused on the sources, so I will not respond to your other points here. Thanks. Federalwafer (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts about these sources, who declared it the "Official Flag Of Antarctica" and when? Sorry, this makes me doubt these are RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As such this may well fail wp:undue, this needs removing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

POV Pushing?

The most updated version of the article has been reverted for POV pushing, but all claims were accurately sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. @Vanilla Wizard, could you clarify which part of Wikipedia:Point of view you are concerned with so it can be fixed? The version you reverted to has outdated information.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The version before the article was reverted said that there was an "official" flag of Antarctica. There is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The version stated "it is considered to be the official flag of Antarctica", which is verified by the source. If the concern is about the source, that's a matter of reliability, not POV pushing. Regardless, it doesn't justify reverting the entire article, per WP:CAUGHTUP.  Not A  Witty Fish 19:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that you restructured the entire article around the idea that the True South flag is the one true flag of Antarctica, I'd say reverting changes made to the entire article was more than appropriate and a partial revert would have been impossible.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It is possible. I would encourage you to review different ways to revert. I would also ask you to review WP:REVEXP. Accusing someone of "unacceptable POV pushing" without further explanation is incendiary and unproductive.  Not A  Witty Fish 14:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You might like to read the above RFC, a close examination of the statuses of different flags. The strong claim in your lead that "The design known as True South is considered to be the official flag of Antarctica and is the only one recognized Antarctic Treaty members." would require strong sourcing per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but cited only an online guidebook assembled by "a team of ‘ice cool’ polar enthusiasts". In presenting that claim to the exclusion of all others and spending much space even on the dimensions of that map and its precise colours (expressed in three different ways!), WP:NPOV was breached Within that policy, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE are particularly pertinent, but it's worth reading the whole policy from its crucial first sentence to understand how they fit within it NebY (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that, @NebY. Construction sheets and color grids are very standard for almost all flag articles (Brazil, China, France, New Zealand), so including them in a article wouldn't be considered POV pushing unless it were assumed that a flag was not the formal flag of a place. So those concerns you raise are still about the reliability of the source.

With that in mind, the source states clearly "we have a strong editorial process with expert fact-checkers to ensure accurate and up-to-date information" It's claims are corroborated by several other sources, several of which are cited in the article already (Design Week; Wevux; 99% Invisible; the North American Vexillological Association, Vol. 16 pp. 4, "For the first time in history, national Antarctic programs, expedition teams, and other Antarctic organizations from around the world have collectively adopted a flag for Antarctica. The adoption of the flag, called True South, is the result of an international effort to promote cooperation and bring greater attention to the value and vulnerability of Antarctica.") The only source I could find that contradicts the one I cited was the one declared unreliable per the consensus above.  Not A  Witty Fish 20:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll have little time to engage more in the next few days, but briefly, though it's good that polarguide says it checks its facts, their claim alone is not enough to establish that they are a reliable source. Also, you linked to Talk:Flag of Antarctica#Seeking consensus on notoriety of Bartram flag describing it as "the consensus above". That discussion did not reach consensus. Consensus was summarised in the close, two months ago, of the RFC on this talk page, "Consensus was the added third option to not use any flag icon on the template. The main reasoning for no icon is that there is no official flag for Antartica."; if you want to establish consensus that there now is an official flag of Antarctica, you need to do so here with a fresh RFC. NebY (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, that's the discussion I intended to link to. The consensus I was referring to was about the credibility of the source wordatlast.com, which is the only one I could find that contradicts the source I cited. (Please note the number of other articles that corroborate the claim in polarguidebook.com.)

I did look back at both RFCs, the one that voted in favor and the one that voted against using the current flag as the template icon. Thank you for your suggestion. With all respect for the editors and the RFC process, the discussion was almost all unsupported opinions. The only sources mentioned in the discussions support the formal recognition of the current flag, and none of them used the current source under question. So unless there's opposition to the idea, I think the next step is to put polarguidebook.com to Wikipedia:RSN for discussion.  Not A  Witty Fish 13:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Polarguidebook's claim that the True South flag is "widely considered to be the official flag of Antarctica and is the only one to be recognized by treaty members" is not corroborated by the sources linked. There is no official flag of Antarctica. You can bring it up at RSN if you'd like, but regardless of what RSN may or may not say about the source more generally, that wouldn't override the clear consensus that the claim it makes regarding the True South flag is untrue and should not be in the article. After months of arguing, an overwhelming majority of editors are of the same mind that it is wildly inappropriate to suggest that there exists such a thing as "the official flag of Antarctica." The True South flag is no more "official" than any other. It's become popular among scientists in recent years, this is true, but it's factually inaccurate to say it is "official." To be absolutely clear: adoption by researchers does not make it "the official flag of Antarctica." The first RfC which installed the True South flag as the one used in the template (and had next to no participation) arbitrarily decided that whichever flag is being used at the most research bases right now is "the flag"; the second RfC strongly rejected the validity of this metric and concluded that it's not our business to decide what the flag is. Ravenswing put it well with this comment: You don't get a vote as to what the "flag of Antarctica" is. Neither do I. Neither do any of us. None of these flags are official except for the flag of the Antarctic Treaty, which represents an organization, not the continent itself. Completely unrelated, but it's flattering that you liked my signature enough to use it as the basis of yours  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that editors shouldn't vote on what the flag of Antarctica is, we should rely on the sources. The sources say that countries and national programs have adopted the flag, not just scientists. If you doubt the claims in the sources, then this is still an issue of WP:RS. I have brought the discussion to the noticeboard.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue isn't just that Wikipedia editors shouldn't vote on the matter: it is that nobody has the authority to declare any flag "official". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that countries adopting a flag is precisely what makes it official. But setting that aside, wouldn't countries adopting the flag make it at the very least much more important than the proposals? The other two flags mentioned in the article are documented as being specifically not recognized or commonly used, so the current version that gives them the same weight as the True South flag seems to me to be more of a violation of WP:UNDUE than the version with my edits. (The other flag in the article, the white flag, wasn't intended as a proposal and shouldn't be labeled as such.)

In an effort to find a compromise, I suggest removing mentions of the flag's official recognition but restoring the infobox, lede, and design and history portions. (I also suggest restoring the 'Flag of territorial claims' and 'Flags of international Antarctic organizations' sections, but that is a separate issue from the discussion here.)  Not A  Witty Fish 01:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Reinstating the infobox, lede, etc. still communicates to the reader that the True South flag is "the" flag of Antarctica. That's not really a compromise. There's also no need to compromise for its own sake when so far four have commented on this talk section and you are the only editor in support of your version of the article. Your version also removes most information about the territorial claims, removes reliable sources, makes the formatting very strange visually and makes it less friendly to mobile readers. As for the international Antarctic organizations, the only difference between your version and the current version is that yours adds another flag that you uploaded which cites only an unreliable Facebook post and does not demonstrate notability, so it doesn't belong in the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you continuing to engage in this discussion, but it feels like every time I answer your point you just change your stance. I would appreciate if you would directly respond to my evidence instead of shifting the conversation. Here's a summary of the arguments being made for why my edits were "unacceptable POV pushing", and the counterarguments I have offered:

• The True South flag was just adopted by scientists
  • Per the several sources cited above, it was countries (national governments and branches of national governments) that have adopted the flag. Directors of national program are on record supporting the flag.
• No flag could be declared official
  • Adoption by countries seems like pretty clear official recognition to me, but I've already offered to avoid making claims about a flag being completely official so this shouldn't be a point of contention anymore.
• All the proposals should be presented equally
  • Per the sources in my last comment, the Smith and Bartram proposals were explicitly not adopted or recognized by any government or organization, nor were they popular or often used. To present the projects of hobbyists and flag enthusiasts on equal footing with a flag that has been recognized by national governments is a violation of WP:UNDUE.
• The edits to the territorial claims and Antarctic organizations section removed reliable sources and added unreliable ones
  • I already addressed this on your talk page because I don't see how it's related to your accusation of POV pushing, which is what this talk section is about. Since you're bringing it up here instead of responding there, I will summarize the points I already made. But please respond on your page or, if you feel you must, a new talk section here. I want to keep this conversation focused.
    • 1. Using the table disambiguates the article. Each flag already has its own entry which was linked in the table. The sources were not removed as they are still cited in each articles. The table also describes all territorial claim flags, unlike the current version which only describes a few. If you have suggestions for how to format the section to be more visually appealing, I'd welcome them.
    • 2. The section on flags of international Antarctic organizations includes new, valuable, and sourced information. Your claim about the Facebook being unreliable does not apply here per WP:Facebook: "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." The cited source about the SCAR flag is from SCAR's official Facebook page.

 Not A  Witty Fish 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"every time I answer your point you just change your stance. I would appreciate if you would directly respond to my evidence" And I would appreciate if you didn't accuse me of trying to shift the goalpost. You could've at least told me what stance of mine you thought has changed, because I'm almost certain that I've just been repeating myself verbatim. My stance is that no flag is official nor can there be an official one, and that's not mutually exclusive with arguing that adoption by scientists does not make it official. And yes, by scientists I do mean researchers in Antarctica working under national Antarctic programs, I'm surprised I have to clarify that. The formatting of your reply makes it harder to follow the conversation (4 indents in the same reply), but I'll try to address everything you said.

That it was adopted by researchers in Antarctica working for National Antarctic Programs does not mean that "countries adopted it." This was already argued in previous discussions.

And as was also argued about in previous discussions, even though I agree that the True South flag is currently the most popular among researchers from certain national Antarctic programs, that does not make it "the official flag" nor is the True South flag the only one to have ever been flown by researchers on the continent. No one has the authority to give Antarctica an official flag.

The sources you've provided, bar the unreliable blog claiming otherwise, do not corroborate the claim that the True South flag is the official flag of Antarctica. You even quoted them at the RS/N discussion, and not one of them said anything even resembling that extraordinary claim. The closest was one of them claiming that it was "somewhat" official; the rest of the quotes were so unrelated that I'm not even sure why you pasted them in that discussion.

The most important thing to remember here is that this isn't just my perspective; we had an RfC open for nearly 2 months with participation from 19 people, and there was a near unanimous consensus that there is no official flag of Antarctica and that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to choose any one for any reason. Hence the flagicon should not display any one flag as "the flag", nor should this article. You need a consensus if you want to change this, you're not just arguing with me here. Taking it to noticeboards is not a valid way of circumventing consensus. Even if I agreed with you, we'd need more editors to agree, and even in this talk section, no one else is on board with the changes you're suggesting.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep this conversation focused, so I will do my best to summarize your arguments (though I am not intending speaking on your behalf) and answer them again.

• There is no official flag of Antarctica
  • I have agreed to drop this, and I would appreciate if you would too.
• The RFC has already given a decision on this
  • The RFC was about the template for the country data and whether True South is official. Neither of those things are being discussed here. What is being discussed is whether my edits constitute POV pushing, which so far only you have accused me of. If they are not POV pushing, then they should be restored at least partially or another explanation given.
• The True South flag was just adopted by scientists
  • There are many, many sources supporting the fact that the flag is adopted by nations and national Antarctic programs, government arms that manage operations and governance on Antarctica. These include direct quotes from directors of such programs supporting the flag Most of the sources do not even mention scientists.
• All the proposals should be presented equally
  • You did not address my previous response to this claim, so I'll repeat it here. The Smith and Bartram proposals were explicitly not adopted or recognized by any government or organization, nor were they popular or often used (citations above). To present the projects of hobbyists and flag enthusiasts on equal footing with a flag that has been recognized by national governments is a violation of WP:UNDUE.

With all of these points in mind, I would like to suggest my earlier compromise which would accurately represent all flags in this article without making any false or misleading claims. Remove mentions of the flag's official recognition but restore the infobox, lede, and design and history portions.  Not A  Witty Fish 00:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not A Witty Fish, you wrote "What is being discussed is whether my edits constitute POV pushing, which so far only you have accused me of". What we should be discussing is what the article should say, how it should be structured, and so forth. I described it as breaching WP:NPOV and in an edit summary, Vanilla Wizard said they were "Removing unacceptable POV pushing". Perhaps because I'm used to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and WP:AGF, I read that as removing text that was pushing a POV. May I encourage you, even if you don't read it that way, not to insist that you have been accused of POV pushing and that we must discuss that here? Wikipedia articles are rarely improved that way.

Moving on, I'm seeing many terms being used: official, recognised, adopted, flown, supported. They're not synonymous, and their meanings vary with context; for example, adoption by a scientist employed by a nation or even an entire research station is not adoption by a nation, whether we're talking about puppies or flags. Blurring such things together can breach WP:SYNTH. The enthusiasm for the TN flag in some of the quotes you've offered is palpable, but as editors we mustn't read them as legal pronouncements.

If I understand your closing comment correctly, you're suggesting we don't call the TS flag offcial but keep calling it recognised by national governments and adopted, and keep the preponderance of text, infobox and images focused on the TS flag as in your first edit. That would have much the same effect on our readers, and still beg the question of compliance with WP:DUE. There's a test in that, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts" It seems, looking at the references on this page, that the main text presented is an article in the North American Vexillogical Association's magazine Vexillum; together with another article there, that's half of the refs below. I would normally understand "easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts" as there being a multiplicity of commonly accepted reference texts in agreement, and that's not what I'm seeing here. Maybe some day there will be but it's a commonplace of Wikipedia that it lags behind the latest discoveries, theories and developments in many fields and that we accept this as the price of WP:V. NebY (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. Life happened.

I read edit summary as an accusation, especially since no explanation was given when it was reverted. Thank you for the reminder of AGF and for refocusing the conversation on the topic. I agree that's more productive.

To your comment about "easy to substantiate," I cited the Vexillum article several times because of several quotes from different people, but there are many more about TS. (Close to a dozen in the article itself.) I don't know they do use many different words, but "adopt" is the most common (3 of the 5 quotes sources from my last comment.)

I understand that you do not support my suggested compromise. I still think that presenting the project proposals if they are the same status as an adopted flag is giving the others undue weight. Would you agree? If yes, what alternative would you suggest to improve the article?  Not A  Witty Fish 22:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Very briefly (life is about to happen) I'd say work within the current structure. Add to the lead that the Bartram design has been used for emojis and in recent years the TS flag has been flown at many stations / is in use at many stations etc., all in accordance with WP:LEAD ie summarising the article body. Add WP:RS references to the TS section. Avoid use of "official", "recognised" or "adopted" unless directly supported by legislation or explicit pronouncements from competent and empowered officials in WP:RS (yes, this does exclude eg the Design Week quote where we can't tell quite what "adopted" might mean and such a question is rather outside the magazine's scope.) Though this may not have been discussed, I'd move the images of the proposed flags to accompany their sections, in the same manner as the territorial ones below, because that's more helpful to the reader. Don't provide design details such as dimensional drawings, colours for any flag. All in all, allow TS to feature with WP:DUE weight as a recent creation with growing support and use. Oh, and if citing Vexillum, make it clear which issue and page and link to that if accessible. NebY (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @NebY. That all sounds good to me. I'll make a few changes to the article based on that.  Not A  Witty Fish 15:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@MrGogisa Please see this thread for discussion about the introduction. If you disagree with the consensus above, please discuss before making further changes. Thank you.  Not A  Witty Fish 19:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree here with @Vanilla Wizard. Also to note, all that I can see is some hard pov push for one design. "Sources" are a couple of interviews with designer who in his own words claim many stuff and sources transmit that even with "according to", and that is it. There should be sources that have numerous interviews and reports but not with the designer of that proposal but with other people who feel represented by that flag and who matter about the topic, than and only than that proposal would have some more weight instead of other ones, but still would be just proposal. Anyway, this is an encyclopedia, not a tool for promotion or advocacy. Also I hope to there is not some WP:COI.MrGogisa (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Rearranging/removing flags that aren't flags of Antarctica?

The Emblem of the Antarctic Treaty, Expedition flags, and Flags of territorial claim sections are about flags related to Antarctica, but this article is about the Flag of Antarctica ("a flag or flag design that represents the continent of Antarctica"). To make the difference clear, I suggest making all three sections into sub-sections under a new section "Other Antarctic flags." Alternatively, since all territorial claim flags have their own page already, most of what's here could be put into a "See also" section with links. Thoughts?  Not A  Witty Fish 21:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I see we already have List of Antarctic flags. That could perhaps use the Discovery flag and a little of the (oddly duplicated) text from this article (properly attributed but looks to cover all the territorial flags. Maybe it would be enough for this article to say that various expeditions, bases and territories have (had) their own flags and link to List of Antarctic flags. NebY (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand, you're suggesting condensing the sections to a short mention, then linking to the List of Antarctic flags article? If so, I'd agree with that.  Not A  Witty Fish 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am indeed - now rather surprised the territorial flags have been here so long. NebY (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@NebY Thanks. Edits made.  Not A  Witty Fish 19:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it made sense to include some of the designs used by territories in the continent as long as they were unique provincial designs, i.e. not just national flags. It's a decent middle-ground between having too little and too much content in a topic like "Flag of Antarctica" - it's hard to make a good article about a topic that technically doesn't even exist (side note, maybe the current article title is imprecise?). But it's not something I feel passionately about. I'm in the minority here, so I won't consider re-adding the other flags unless the tides change and other editors agree.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding that I think the ATS flag & white expedition flag should be reintroduced. This I do feel a little more strongly about than the territorial flags. The white flag was described as a flag for a continent without one of its own & is stored in a museum as "the first flag of Antarctica." I feel that's more than relevant to the article topic. The ATS flag is also the only flag used to represent a legally binding agreement governing the condominium; it's the only flag that can be described as "official" despite not representing the landmass itself. I won't do a bold reintroduction of this material as we're already discussing it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

One last thing, I noticed today that this was the only article on the encyclopedia displaying the photo File:White Flag of Antarctica RMG L0129.tiff. I don't believe the List of Antarctic flags page isn't a sufficient alternative home for information about the Discovery flag, given that list-class articles are simply indexes and not meant to contain long-form prose. Unlike either the territorial flags or the ATS flag, it was in fact intended to be a flag symbolizing the continent itself. I think it's valuable and relevant information for the readers. I hope that others will agree. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Surprising the Discovery flag isn't elsewhere on en.wiki. As a quick change to make sure the image isn't orphaned, I've replaced the generic white flag at List of Antarctic flags with File:White Flag of Antarctica RMG L0129.tiff. I agree it would be a good fit here too. I'm happy to see the territorial flags gone and the article more focused. Among other things, it means there's less need for (or even point in?) an extensive lead, which saves us from the summarising I suggested before but turns out to be contentious still. NebY (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response! I've re-added the info about the white Discovery flag to the article. The territorial flags staying out is fine since they have their own individual articles describing them in more detail than the simple list article could. I'll be sure to link to their pages in the See also section. I'm still not sure about the ATS flag, but this is less of an issue since the previous revision only had a few sentences about it. It should be possible to cover that one adequately at the List of Antarctic flags page (if it doesn't already contain all the same info). The plain white flag was the only one I really thought deserved to be re-added since it has a whole paragraph of sourced prose, so I don't have any other strong disagreements with the current revision.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah good. I've copy-edited that bit, which read as two separate versions strung together, I think with this edit, and adjusted it to be more specific about the museum (one of four sites in Greenwich) and that we don't know it only flew twice, only that the Times mentioned it when Discovery left London and that it was also flown on leaving Capetown.

In doing so, I noticed something a bit disquieting; the opinion that it may be the first flag of Antarctica is not sourced; it's editorialising / WP:OR on our part. What to do? NebY (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I took another look at the sources and you're right, they do not state that it was the first flag of Antarctica meaning that this would in fact be original research. Good catch, I've removed that claim from the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nicely done - the Times quote suits well. NebY (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes look good. Thank you both.  Not A  Witty Fish 01:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

CGPGrey video

I'm not such a skilled Wikipedian, but I think it would be good to mention the CGPGrey video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0wTDK0VOeY. It discusses several of the flags and ultimately endorses the True South proposal. KeithWM (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean as a source? Is it notable in some way? We shouldn't mention a YouTube video just because it exists.  Not A  Witty Fish 22:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)