Talk:Union Jack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

PROPOSAL TO HAVE A VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, rev. 22-July

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move of the article below. The result was move to Union Flag. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I received a comment that this voting procedure needed to be clearer and explained better and that it should include previous contributors who have made their views known.

Therefore, I have gone only to the signed or IP address comments below from the "Article Name" section and counted the following YES or NO votes as tabulated here.

WE ARE VOTING TO: (1) Change the article's name to UNION FLAG from Union Jack and (2) Ensure that a re-direct exists from "Union Jack" to "Union Flag".

The votes based on the comments in the discussion section below are as follows:

YES = 7

mais ou; jmd; 195.188.173.98; MORHI; RMHED; thesocialistesq; Vivaverdi

NO = 5

Zundark; JW1805; Rls; Tclef; nae'blis

If you are already included above and have made your views known, please do not vote here.

PLEASE MAKE NO COMMENTS HERE, JUST A PLAIN "YES" to make the changes in #1 and #2 or "NO" to leave things where they are.

Given this clarification, I propose that we extend the deadline to SATURDAY 29 JULY, 11pm (whatever/wherever UTC is) Vivaverdi 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NEW VOTERS HERE please (with your signature or IP address):

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rebel Flag - why is this in the article?

It links to an article on various American flags, none of which have anything to do with the Union Jack. It should be removed. 222.152.64.109 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Name: Union Flag or Union Jack

This is the flag of the monach. According to the only official source on the web concerning the name subject (i.e www.royal.gov.uk) both names are acceptable. Personally I think that the new term (Union Flag) denies heritage and culture and is unnecessary, but such changes are trendy in today's Britain. The argument that wikipedia is an irresponsible research tool finds backing with this ridiculous discussion. Both unfortunately are acceptable.

Move Union Jack to Union Flag

Union Flag is the correct official name. The appropriateness of using the "nickname" as the main header in a reference work is very open to question. The authority of the official title - Union Flag - cannot be questioned. Let's move the whole article to the Union Flag page. --Mais oui! 14:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree! The canonical reference of an article should be the correct name of the subject. Unofficial and colloquial names should be redirects or simple references even if they are commonly (mis)used. Move the entire article to Union Flag. --130.95.128.51 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC). Now I'll add a sig whilst logged in: --jmd 02:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read the earlier discussion above. Both names are correct and official. Wikipedia convention is to use the most common name as the title of an article. --Zundark 12:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Should be kept at Union Jack. It's the most common name.--JW1805 22:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the move tag. --JW1805 23:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• The page should be moved. The union flag is the corect name and the union jack page will be redirected to the new page.--195.188.173.98 11:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Union Jack and Union Flag would both be valid names for the article; since it is currently at Union Jack it should stay there. Rls 12:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• The article should stay at Union Jack as it is the most commonly known name for the flag. There should be a redirect from union flag to union jack.

• Definatley should stay as the Union Jack. I have never even heard of the 'Union Flag'! And you have to admit, its sounds a whole lot better!

• 'Union Jack sounds cooler' is ridiculious. The official term is the Union Flag, and thus should be moved and a redirect placed from Union Jack. This is regardless of what is more commonly, or generally, known. People aren't going to get lost or fail to find the correct article, as a redirect would be placed. It is referred to as the Union Flag on both [1] (which even though it makes reference to the union jack, proceeds to call it the Union Flag throughout the body of the text), as does Whitaker's Almanack: "The national flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Flag, generally known as the Union Jack". M0RHI 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There has just been a BBC documentary entitled Union Jack, which the flag is popularly known as in Britain. I'm no specialist, but have always known the flag by that name. Suggest keep it under Union Jack and redirect from Union Flag (unfamiliar, and not popularly used, even if "correct"). -- FClef 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Or, how about have it as Union Flag, and have Union Jack redirect there. Union Flag is the correct terminology. People who search for Union Jack wouldn't be prejudiced by this arrangement, and they'd have the benefit of knowing the real name of the flag. M0RHI 12:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the Union Flag not the Union Jack, what it is popularly known as is irrelevant, the article should use the correct form.--RMHED 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Union Flag" is really the only correct way to refrence it, whether more people call it the "Union Jack" or not is unimportant. Wikipedia is here to alay popular misconseptions, not to spread them. We ought to call it the "Union Flag" for the same reason we call Her Majesty "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories" as opposed to the arguably more popular "Queen of England". We can comprimise, however, by treating this flag as we do all other national flags, and simply calling the page "Flag of the United Kingdom". Thesocialistesq 09:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AGREE TO MOVE with re-direct FROM JACK to FLAG.

Isn't there now enough agreement to do this???

Vivaverdi 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't consensus on the move. As noted in other sections of this page, "Union Jack" is overwhelmingly more common in usage and has been used in official Crown statements. "Union Flag" gets conflated with the American Civil War flag, for example. While one is official, we're not here to "correct" common usage, but to report it. There's been a similar debate recently over military operations, whether they should go under their "Operation Whatever" name or the term uses by the media/public. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the correct terminology is Union Flag. People won't be affected by using the incorrect terminology, as they would be redirected to flag. The website of the monarchy refers to it as the "Union Flag, also known as the Union Jack". It's a misconception that it's called the Union Jack on land. It's like Big Ben, for example. That big clock is not called Big Ben, the bell inside is Big Ben, however this does not redirect to the Great Clock of Westminster. Wikipedia is holding, and in fact persisting with a misconception. If you want final guidance, ring the Department of Culture, Media and Sport up, and ask them the official title. They will no doubt tell you, as they have me, it's the Union Flag. M0RHI 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet, our article is at Big Ben, to which Great Clock of Westminster is a redirect. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (especially regarding common names), which says that we should generally use the name people are most familiar with. This page has been movewarred in the past, but no consensus exists for a shift to Union Flag (which should probably be a disambiguation page, in all honesty). See also Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, etc. I can see your point, I just don't think the move will help people find the page any better. The very first line clarifies what the official name is, after all; I mainly watchlisted this page to keep an eye on the namechange wars going on in the past. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Union Jack/Union Flag (again)

An anon has just gone through the article uncritically changing every occurrence of "Union Jack" to "Union Flag", even where the phrase occurs in a quotation or refers to the colour terminology used by the (former) British Colour Council. I am reverting those obvious, factually mistaken changes, but leave it to wider consensus as to whether all such changes should be reverted. It seems to me that the prevailing terminology of the article should be consistent with the article's title, whatever that is agreed to be. Vilcxjo 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to using "Union Jack". Whatever the decision on the title of the article, the name in the article should be consistent with it. Rls 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That is usually true most of the time, but there are exceptions, as in this case. I do however agree that quotes should not be changed and if they were it was by either accident or correction. Mark 11:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading this article today two things occur to me. Firstly, as the article itself states, although 'Union Flag' is the correct official term, 'Union Jack' has achieved correctness through colloquial usage. Therefore, arguments among civilians (I am a civilian) about whether it should be 'Union Jack' or 'Union Flag' are mainly based on pedantry. Either would therefore be a correct header for the article. Secondly, there is no consistency in the article in terms of usage. Sometimes it is 'Union Flag', sometimes 'Union Jack', and on a couple of occasions a BBC-style 'union jack'. Even if all are correct usages, would it not be less confusing for non-British readers if we picked one and stuck to it? - Adaru 10:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Union Jack/Union Flag (again again)

There's no real debate here... it's called the Union Jack, and every British person knows it. Who dreamed up this "Union Flag" stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.10.177 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Merge

Union Jack & Flag of the United Kingdom

Why have two articles on the same flag (Union Jack & Flag of the United Kingdom), different names (or different names when used in certain contexts) should be dealt with in one article. Even if the flag has 2 names and more than one use it is still the same flag!! (unless the flags look different, maybe by the same people who can tell if the flag is upsidedown or not)--Cap 00:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• We already have Union Jack; recommend merging or replacing this one by that more established, fuller article. --Brion

Merging complete. I've also added the talk from the Union Jack article to here, though it doesn't entirely fit with what the article now says, see below: Scipius 17:53 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

• This article needs to be moved to Flag of the United Kingdom. tommylommykins 17:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Flag of the United Kingdom for a discussion about this. Both pages serve a purpose. --JW1805 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• While this name is in scheme with the other "flag of X" page, this flag is an exception in that it has a name. I suggest we move to Union Jack. -- Tarquin

Yes. I will move it back to Union Jack if there are no objections. It also has other names - Union Flag (in official British documents) and Royal Union Flag (in official Canadian documents) - but Union Jack is the commonest name. --Zundark 20:08 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

• The french flag is kown as the "Tricolor", that should be moved too then, but i am against it as i liek things to be constant and this page name is constant. -fonzy

This page name is not constant, as someone has already changed it from Union Jack. Tarquin was merely suggesting moving it back to where it came from. (The French flag is the Tricolore, not Tricolor. But doesn't the Italian flag have the same name (pronounced differently)?) --Zundark 22:48 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

• ops missed the e anotehr one of my typos :-), o well i never win in arguments i just will keeop quiet. -fonzy

Union Jack would be wholly wrong. It is the Union Flag. - Khendon 09:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Neither name is wrong. But Union Jack is what most people know it as, and is therefore the most appropriate title for the article. --Zundark 10:41 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

• Khendon is incorrect . The term 'Union Jack' has been used in official legal documentation issued by the Crown as the name of the British flag, as has 'Union Flag'. So both are legally correct. Union Jack is by far the most commonly used term, and is unambiguously specific, unlike Union Flag, which (a) is sometimes used to describe the US flag when mentioning it in the context of the 'Confederate flag', and (b) is also used to describe the flag of the Kingdom of Britain (1707-1800) and of the same flag used jointly by the Kingdoms of England and Scotland from 1606 to 1707. Therefore, if we are going to use a colloqual term (and I think in this case we should, as the vast majority of Wiki users would recognise it, while it is one of the flag's official names) union jack is by far the better name to use. JTD 21:12 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

• • Let us put this to bed once and for all: The "Union Flag" becomes the "Union Jack" whilst flying from the "Jack-Staff" of a British Naval Vessel. In other words the term "Union Jack" refers to the "Union Flag" whilst it is flying in a specific place viz. Upon the Jack-Staff.

• I think this article should be part of Flag of the United Kingdom, with redirects from Union Jack and Union Flag. It is a lot better to have one article about something rather than two with different information, isn't it? Jake95 22:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge - June 2006

Flag of the United Kingdom should be merged here. It's short now but when it grows its just going to be repetitive. I know that there are naming conventions for flags, but they should be secondary in cases where flags have their own name. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been raised so many times- and has been defeated each time. Do we have to go over it again? Astrotrain 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has this merging taken place? I still see two articles. They should be merged as proposed. FClef 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge. I think it should stay as is. See all the discussions above. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why we have two articles

The whole point of keeping them separate were the following facts:

1. This flag has a name. It is universally called the "Union Jack", and officially the "Union Flag".
2. Every country has a "Flag of ..." article about their flag. So, according to many editors, there must be a Flag of the United Kingdom article. We have had edit wars about this in the past.
3. The Union Jack is the Flag of the United Kingdom. But it is also used in other countries (for example, in the flag of Australia). It is also an official flag of Canada. So, it doesn't make sense to have information of flag days in Canada where the Union Jack is flown in an article called Flag of the United Kingdom.

Because of these facts, a concensus was reached where there would be two articles:

1. Flag of the United Kingdom which has minimal information and only specific to the flag's use as the national flag of the current country called the United Kingdom.
2. Union Jack, which would have detailed information about historical use, use in other countries, and in other flags.

This is why the current situation exists, which I think is a good compromise. I think if one artice is merged into the other, we will just start a new cycle of edit wars which happened in the past. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Superposition of flags

It is a superposition of the flags of England, Scotland and Ireland, which are, respectively, the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick.

This isn't quite accurate.

It is accurate to say that the Union Jack is a superposition of three flags:

• The flag of England, the Cross of St. George
• The flag of Scotland, the Cross of St. Andrew
• The Cross of St. Patrick, representing Ireland.

At the time of the Act of Union, Ireland did not have a national flag. Insofar as anything at that time could be called a national flag, it would be the Green Flag. The Cross of St. Patrick was created based on the crest of the Order of St. Patrick, which was founded in the 1780's or so (reasonably close to the Act of Union), but it's inaccurate to say that it was "the flag of Ireland." -- EdwardOConnor

Yes, you're right, I worded it very badly. I've rewritten it now. Feel free to reword it if you want to include any further information. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 18

• JTD, I know if and when NI leaves the UK, the Union Jack goes back to it's 1800 look. What would happen to the flag if Scotland left the UK? - iHoshie 09:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would probably depend on the nature of Scottish independence. If Scotland completely broke its ties with England, each nation would revert to its pre-1603 flag. If Scotland were to revert to an independent state in personal union with England (the status of the nations between 1603 and 1707), they would probably keep the Union Flag. Jsc1973 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very important to note that in the Union Flag the Cross of St George is for England-and-Wales, not just England. Because it post-dates the union. Otherwise you get people talking about superimposing dragons on it and such like. Graldensblud 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Can I suggest you put pictures of the three unmerged flags side by side?Mintguy

Hi,

Please note the union jack page I created in the Hebrew Wikipedia (under the Hebrew name for "The United Kingdom Flag"). I created a graphical representation of the unification of the flags. You may want to copy it. Beware that in Hebrew everything is written in right-to-left direction (not left-to-right).

MeirM 11:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which way up?

I might be being stupid here, but the flag appears to be asymetrical here and would be the same upside down. Could someone point out how it is different turn the other way? I have heard this many times but cannot see it PLEASE HELP Dainamo

You are probably spinning the flag 180° in your mind, which makes the crosses the same as they began. Try flipping the flag mentally: top becomes bottom; bottom becomes top, but left stays at the left and right stays at the right. Then you'll see the difference.--Indefatigable 02:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Indefatigable. Thinking about is carefully I have to say that rahter than "upside down" the incorrect use of the flag is "back-to-front". And the article should refer to flying the flag the "correct way round" rather than the "corrrect way up". D'ya know whhat I mean?? Dainamo 15:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you appear to be imagining that someone might accidently fly the flag from the wrong end. This isn't likely, because there's no easy way to attach the other end to the halyard. So it's just a question of which of the long edges to put at the top - and if you put the bottom edge at the top, then it's obviously upside-down. --Zundark 16:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The image, in relation to the pole is back to front when the flag is turned upside down and this is what I mentally pictured, but the practical description in relation to the actual flag is upside down. I could not see the wood for the trees I guess Dainamo 18:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, he's correct, you can't fly a Union flag "upside-down" - you talk of flipping but the other side of the flag shouldn't be "the mirror image" because it doesn't have reflectional symmmetry - the other side of the union flag is the union flag, not the mirror image of the union flag !--84.70.189.109 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Andy M

I find the whole section rather inflammatory:

"* In the United States it is very common to see the flag flying upside down, since flag makers simply supply two holes, one at the top, the other at the bottom. Without an understanding of the significance of the placement in relation to the St Patrick cross, it is easy to make the mistake. It is also fairly common to see the flag upside down within the UK itself, a mistake by people who probably don't even realise it has a proper way round." Why is the USA singled out? And the last clause is a sneer. wportre

Thanks. wp

Nothing inflamatory intended; I wrote the first two sentences of the above para. As a Brit living in the USA for 35 years, I'm simply basing this on common observation from travels across the country. In the town where I live, 2 hotels constantly get it wrong. Since almost every one of the other national flags I own and fly come with two holes - one at the top, one at the bottom - there is no way of knowing which is correct.

Even in Hawaii, where the state flag incorporates the union flag (so it should be obvious), I've seen it upside down outside Burberry's (a UK company, no less...) in Waikiki.

I did not write the last sentence.

Vivaverdi 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

folding the Union flag

Does anyone know (of a web link about) how to fold the flag? – Kaihsu 20:41, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• Check here. Under the "Pall for Caskets" section, there is no prescribed manner of folding. However, I suggest to fold it in a square, if possible. Zscout370 21:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ReFlag

I noticed there is a short section about the ReFlag (adding black to the UK flag). I have two questions: is this movement still going? And also, will it be fine if I upload a image that I drew of the ReFlag (216x432 pixels, GIF format)? Zscout370 02:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we should remove it from the article. It was an absurd publicity stunt that sunk without trace. --Khendon 10:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is why I asked before it should be removed. The ReFlag site is still up, Mr. Flag is still selling it, yet, I see no movement still. Zscout370 12:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other flags with the Union Flag

Do you think national flags and also British territories should just be covered here? I do not think we should cover ensigns, since there are soo many to cover. Zscout370 03:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should give blazon and mention augmentation in arms of Wellington and similar heraldic situations. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We forgot someone.

How about slapping a great big dragon in the middle of it to represent Wales. I understand that the country was annexed by England in the 1200's, but it is a country in its own right now and deserves to be honored as such.

the flag was always loved by the Northern stated

Wales never ceased to be a country in its own right, it simply fell under the jurastiction of English law hence the reason for talking about England and Wales as a singular concept in a legal sense (in contrast to separate legal systems in Scotland and N. Ireland). An elected Welsh Assembly does now grant it some independence. Although this may open can worms, I suppose the reason Wales is not represented is that the flag is an emblem of a United Kingdom from three previously separate kingdoms. Wales is a principality and not a kingdom. And remember, while the country refered to as the UK does include Wales, the Union Flag is not and has never been an official flag.

What are the Northern stated(states?)? Dainamo 22:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Welsh dragon does not appear on the Union Flag. This is because when the first Union Flag was created in 1606, the Principality of Wales by that time was already united with England and was no longer a separate principality. (from Royal.gov.uk) --M0RHI 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A Welsh addition has been proposed, which would use the St David Cross, it looks like this: File:New union.jpg

Sorry this is a crappy paint box version as the origanal picture was in an unscannable place, I couldn't find one elsewhere on the webDjarra 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence to any Welsh people but putting a massive great big dragon on it would look a little stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.83.18 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Difference in the Blues

Is there a known reason for the difference of royal/navy blues between the Union Jack and the Flag of Scotland? Both articles advise the reader to 'take note' of the difference, but make no mention of the why. Nae'blis 17:02:20, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Insinuations

I'm explaining why I'm reverting Mais Oui's recent reversion of the article.

His/her version included the following wording:

On April 12, 1606, a new flag to represent this union was specified in a royal decree, which is rather vague in terms of the actual design - no sketches accompanied the document. No flags from this early period survive, and it is doubtful if this early combination of the Saltire and the St George's Cross was ever used on land during the 17th century.

I'll address it bit-by-bit:

• "rather vague" — here's the exact wording: "...the Red Crosse...and the White Crosse...joyned togeether according to the forme made by our heralds, and sent by Us to our Admerall to be published to our Subjects..."
• "no sketches accompanied the document" — as the quotation shows, there clearly were sketches. Just because they haven't survived doesn't mean they didn't exist ever.
• "no flags from this early period survive" — how early a period do you mean? There are certainly pre-1801 flags surviving.
• "it is doubtful if this...was ever used on land" — everybody agrees that the flag was originally for aquatic use. So what?

But the point isn't the bit-by-bit, it's the overall effect: the overall effect of Mais Oui's wording is to create a vague impression of doubt in the mind of the reader. Doubt about what? Just what is Mais Oui trying to imply? He/she should come right out and say it. Doops | talk 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with reverting these edits. --JW1805 23:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Compromise wording/citations

Hi. I have attempted to start doing the proper wikipedia thing, i.e. collaborating. I have tried to take on board some of Mais Oui's contributions, and look for a third, compromise option in some cases where appropriate. (For example, as a compromise between "the original flag" and "this early form" I propose "the pre-1801 flag.")

One point of Mais Oui's I which I incorporated caused some trepidation: the notion that the phrases "Union Flag" and "Union Jack" date to the early 18th century. I have no personal knowledge on this point, but I'll take Mais Oui's word for it for now — but a citation would ease my mind. Likewise, I'd like a citation from somebody — anybody! — to give the date of the earliest surviving Union Flag and/or representation thereof. Thanks in advance. Doops | talk 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The UK Royal Family Website [2] says that "The term Union Jack possibly dates from Queen Anne's time (reigned 1702-14), but its origin is uncertain..."--JW1805 22:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know why anyone would have a problem with "Original Union Flag". Putting "The Union Flag before 1801" is just too wordy, and no longer matches the next section which is called "Current Union Flag". I don't quite like the "(The original sketches which accompanied this specification are lost.)" It still seems to imply that there is some doubt as to what the original version actually looked like. In reality, there is no doubt. --JW1805 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"... It still seems to imply that there is some doubt as to what the original version actually looked like. In reality, there is no doubt." Indeed! How so? Are you the custodian of some previously unreleased academic research? Pray indulge us with the treasure chest of your knowledge.

There is in fact a great deal of doubt regarding the appearance of any "Union Flag" (sic) in the 1600's. It is highly unlikely that it looked anything like your fanciful image download. Please remove that faux diagram of the formation of the Union Flag until you can come up with some evidence. At the very least ammend the date of the proto-flag from 1606 to 1707. Until you do, I am removing it from the article. I await some reasoned research.--Mais oui! 21:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Are you saying that a different Union flag (something other than the superposition of the St. George and St. Andrew flags) was used from 1606-1707? Where is your evidence for this? Wikipedia is not the place for original research or speculations. I have restored the diagram, since it is based on the generally accepted history. --JW1805 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"... generally accepted history." Indeed? "Generally accepted" by whom? There is no evidence whatsoever that a flag resembling your fanciful diagram was ever in use, anywhere, during the 1600's. If you can provide evidence of a flag, sketch, painting or illustration from that century, then please tell the world about it. The Saltire and St George's Cross can be combined in a very large number of ways, and occasionally were (eg. with the Saltire on top). What evidence do you have to substantiate your simplistic diagram with the date "1606"? A date of 1707 would be beyond doubt, but 1606 is pure invention.--Mais oui! 21:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

National Flags were not commonly used in the 17th century- however the Union Flag was clearly defined in 1606, even if other varations were in use at this time. 1606 is also backed as the date by the UK Royal Family Website [3] Astrotrain 22:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Another reference is a book called "The Kings & Queens of England and Scotland", which had a nice picture on page 127, showing various designs that were drawn up for a joint flag (including the two alternate designs that I put in the article), but says that "none of the above were chosen; the union flag which emerged in 1606 combined the two flags one on top of the other". --JW1805 22:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The royal family website says the same as the 1606 royal decree: that the two crosses were combined. It does not however say how they were combined! Stop making things up: it cheapens the whole wiki encyclopedia project. The Union Flag article is not the sole preserve of JW. It belongs to everybody.--Mais oui! 22:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So, your claim is this: From 1606 to 1707, a different version of the Union flag was used (some other combination of the two flags). And then in 1707, they decided to change it. But, no one seems to have commented on this change in any historical document that I am aware of (again, if you have sources, I would be interested to see them). It seems like something like that would have been noticed by people (for example, if they had been using the one with the Saltaire on top, and suddenly switched to a version with the St. George cross on top.) --JW1805 22:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment left at Mais Oui's Talk page

I will not succumb to bullying. There is no academic evidence whatsoever for the existence of the flag represented in JW1805's diagram at the stated date 1606. He is the one asserting that there was. So I ask, again, politely, where on earth is his evidence? Here is the emission he deposited on my own Talk Page. Do with it what you will, because I have had him up to here. Follows:

Hi, I have never heard of any controversy on the original version of the Union Jack. Do you have any supporting evidence that the original version was something other than the superposition of the English and Scottish flags? Please provide sources for this claim. Wikipedia should only include generally established facts, not speculations. Also, the Edit summery is not the place to engage in debate or to address other users. Please use the talk page to discuss major changes and controversies, and address comments to specific users to that user's talk page. Also, please take note of other Wikipedia policies, such as No personal attacks, and the Three revert rule. --JW1805 22:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)"

Astrotrain: Please re-revert, because the diagram is an important feature of the article, but it contains incorrect information.--Mais oui! 22:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A fresh approach

OK, let's think about it this way:

• We all know that a two-cross union flag (St. George & St. Andrew) was in use in the 18th century; there's no dispute at all over its form. Examples certainly survive.
• We have a quotation to show that some sort of two-cross union flag was proposed in 1606.
• By Occam's razor, the natural assumption is that the two are the same, and that the flag had a continuous use in the interim.
• (Note that there is no quotation suggesting that the flag design was revisited in 1707. If such a quotation exists, please provide it.)

Mais Oui, if you believe that this assumption is unwarranted, please, please present a citation. Have you read books, articles, anything scholarly suggesting that the union flag changed form in or about 1801? I promise you it will be taken seriously.

But, since the wikipedia is not the place for original research, we need a source for this belief. Furthermore, we need a source for the factual claims you keep making (that no 17th-century flags or sketches survive; and that the terms "union jack/flag" date to the 18th century). Maybe you're right, that the rest of us are lazy and closed-minded. But instead of just saying so, why not prove it with evidence? (Also, I wish that you would be more ready to assume good faith. It would make life more pleasant.) Doops | talk 22:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Newest version

My comments on the newest version:

• I'm not a heraldry expert, but are you sure that the new statement "This saltire is overlaid on the saltire of St Andrew." is the same as "The saltire is counterchanged to combine it with the saltire of St Andrew." --JW1805 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No. "countercharged" is a very specific technical term which means that colors are inverted across some line. For example, if we took the English royal arms, divided it vertically ("per pale"), and made the right-hand side yellow with red half-lions, those lions would be countercharged (i.e. red when the background is yellow, and yellow when the background is red). Nothing in the union flag is countercharged; everything is left in its "natural" color. Doops | talk 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Do we need to say something here about the "pinwheeling" of the St. Patrick's cross (which is sort of mentioned later on). I thought maybe the word "countercharged" had something to do with that.
• The current text does not say what the original Union Flag looked like. The problem I have with the quote, and statement that the sketches are now lost, is that it creates (but does not explain) doubt about what the flag looked like. It's just confusing. --JW1805 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I happen to agree with you; but I'm trying to work out a compromise here. Let's give Mais Oui the benefit of the doubt while we give him/her a chance to supply a citation for the "no 17th century flags have survived" claim. As it is now, take comfort in the fact that it's a neutral statement with no "scare words" around it (like "but" or "however"). This is probably the best we can do for now. Doops | talk 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We'll see if he can provide a citation. But, a compromise is not appropriate if it is just one person with a view of history that is not generally accepted.
• I think the mentions of Ireland are unnecessary: "(as well as that of the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been claimed by English Kings since Henry VIII)", and later " (but not Ireland) ". They have nothing to do with the Union Flag. It just clutters up the article. If we mention Ireland, why not point out that the flags of the Channel Islands, Isle of Mann, etc. were not included in the Union Flag? --JW1805 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, those islands aren't "kingdoms", aren't part of the UK, and aren't represented today in the Union Flag. Ireland is definitely more relevant than them. I agree with you, on the other hand, that the Ireland mentions make that sentence more cluttered and confusing; but I can see why somebody might be curious about it and reasonably expect this article to address the question. Perhaps they could go into a footnote? Doops | talk 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe some statement, in the later paragraph mentioning Wales, that the Kingdom of Ireland already existed as a personal union with the English Crown (which also claimed the Kingdom of France too). But I'm not sure that Ireland was really an independent kingdom, since the Irish Parliament was subsurvient to the English Parliament (see Poyning's Law).--JW1805 20:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge "List of British flags" into "Union Jack"

List of British flags was only created on 25th July 2005, and yet somebody at some point has added the line: "See main article: List of British flags" hidden way down at the bottom of the Union Jack article. That seems like the tail trying to wag the dog.

Is List of British flags really the "main article", or is it in reality a subsidiary article, that belongs as a section at the bottom of the Union Jack page.

Remember that, de facto, the Union Jack page is the "Flag of the United Kingdom" page (for some reason the UK seems to be about the only one which has a nickname used for the article, rather than the standard "Flag of the ...." format (other places have pet names for their flags too, but do not use them as the Header). As the "Flag of the United Kingdom" page it seems very appropriate to give a mention to the other, subsidiary banners at the foot of the article.--Mais oui! 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The list is too large to be included in the main Union Jack page- particuarly as it includes different categories of flags used in the UK, as well as being part of a "List of flags" series. Astrotrain 20:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Impossible. Have you looked at these page? Each one is a real, honest-to-goodness full-length page. One is a text-heavy discussion of the Union Flag; the other is an image-rich list. Each deserves to be independent. Also, even if this page were renamed to the standard "Flag of the UK", it would only be about the national flag of that country, which is one single flag. All those other flags at "Flags of the UK", while interesting, are not the national flag. The template at the bottom of the page is a good & eye-catching way to link the two together. Doops | talk 20:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two posts that the articles should be separate. List of British flags is not considered the main article either, since it is just a gallery of flags that incorporate the Union Jack. --JW1805 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui!, can we remove the merge template now? It's clear there's not going to be any support for anything other than two separate articles. However, if you think the way those two articles are linked together is less than ideal, by all means devise a better system of doing so. Doops | talk 22:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal Blues

The section of this article on flag use gives colour specifications for "Royal Blue" and cites The Flag Institute's publication "British Flags & Emblems". A simple demonstration appears to show striking differences between the results of using different formulations available in Photoshop 7.0. Can anyone explain this? Dystopos 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put it in the article. This is because Pantone and CMYK are primarily for print (inks) and RGB and Web-hex are for screens (lights). The problem that computer screens are all different adds to the problem. I have no idea what the MoD and NATO colourings are used for. Greentubing 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As you say, Pantone and CMYK are intended for different media from the RGB values. There isn't (and can't be) a unique way to convert between them, especially as it depends on the screen setting, so it's not really fair to say that they don't match up unless there are massive differences. Hex and RGB are two different ways of encoding the same system, so it is fair to compare these, but they are meant to be different. The Websafe colours are meant to be the nearest browser safe RGB values to the colours, whereas the others are taken from a larger range. JPD (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, the differences appear quite massive. The demonstration is more useful in undermining the expectation that color specs are authoritative across different technologies than in shedding light on what "royal blue" is supposed to look like. --Dystopos 16:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The real issue is that you shouldn't trust Photoshop to tell you what Pantone colours look like, or use a screen to tell you what CMYK colours look like. You're right that the different specs can't be used across technologies, but that also means it's not right to use one technology to compare them. JPD (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The illustration was intended for personal curiousity, and I uploaded it for the discussion. The decision to include it in the article was made by another editor. --Dystopos 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I am the one who included the image (see further up this thread). I'll correct the caption regarding print/screen media differences. Greentubing 10:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the colour chart, the entry for the blue CMYK value has one more number value than the others (five instead of four), is this a mistake, or am i just misunderstanding the format? Aamackie 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

I have elsewhere proposed creating a Gallery of flags based on British ensigns which would relocate a large number of images from Gallery of flags by design. The proposed new gallery would show thumbnail images of all flags, national or otherwise, based on British ensigns. It would be subdivided into sections for the Blue, Red & White ensigns, the Sky Blue, and other variations. I welcome discussion on my proposal which would naturally be linked from this page. Dystopos 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a better name would be Gallery of flags based on the Union Flag. But other than that quibble, yes, of course such a list (or, better yet, gallery) should exist — rather than the long and unwieldy list of such flags which this page one contained. Doops | talk 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, a large number of flags were based specifically on the design of the ensign, which itself incorporates the Union Flag. So the proposal would create a gallery of ensign-based flags while other flags that use the Union Flag could still be individually notable enough to mention here. Am I misundersanding the derivation of these or is there another reason not to use my proposed title? Dystopos 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Another "Union Flag"

I think we need a disambiguation page. I understand that "Union Flag", while normally referring to the "Union Jack" was also the (English) name of the Flag of Sweden-Norway. See the article for that flag (which resembles the Union Jack somewhat). Any comments? Avalon 11:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A simple reference to the other flag would do. Likewise "Union Jack" when used as a rgference to the USA's ensign garryq 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Day

"The Union Jack is commonly hung alongside the Canadian flag on Commonwealth day". I think that needs some backing up, since the response of every Canadian I know to that statement would be "what day is that?" DJ Clayworth 20:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Day? What day is that? - Adaru (British)

Cross interactions?

I think we need to say that the red diagonal sections in the lower hoist (left) and the upper fly (right) are exactly parallelograms, and the red of St Patrick does not meet the corner of the white border of St George (except on the 3:5 version, where the vertical edge of the red section created is about 1% the height of the flag) due to the white of St Andrew. This is a common mistake, and this article needs to correct those who make this mistake. — Gee Eight, 6 December 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Why is cross of St. Patrick off-center?

I don't understand why the Union flag's saltire/cross of St. Patrick is off-center, rather than being overlaid precisely along the center of the cross of St. Andrew. Can anyone offer an expalanation? LeoO3 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• St Andrews cross takes precedence over St Patrick's cross Astrotrain 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. I believe it's to make the flag asymmetrical, so that there's a "right way up" and a "wrong way up." But of course the difference is so slight as to be virtually invisible; which is why it's a good thing that ships wishing to fly a flag of distress get to use their much less symmetrical ensigns for the purpose. Doops | talk 16:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. Think about it. St Patrick's cross includes a white border. If you put the cross of St Patrick on top of the cross of St Andrew in the centre, the former would obscure the latter almost completely, making Scotland look like part of the fimbriation of Ireland. What is happening here is that the two crosses are being placed side by side because of their identical shape and status. Gee Eight 22 December 2005 20.39 UTC

I've heard this before, but I've never understood it. Surely the St. Andrew's and St. Patrick's flags are exactly analagous to one another -- a field of color A with a saltire of color B; no borders are involved. But the side-by-side explanation see,s to suggest that the St. Patrick is "a red saltire bordered in white" (field unspecified) and the St. Andrew is "a white saltire" (field unspecified) and that they're both placed on a blue field (reason unspecified). Doops | talk 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See http://users.sisna.com/justinb/ujack.html

• The only way to do that and preserve the rules of heraldry that forbid abutting red and blue without a "metal" (white or yellow) in between would be to put a thin St. Patrick's cross on top of a wide St. Andrew's, but placing it on top would be considered a (politically unacceptable) expression of precedence. Instead, the diagonals are divided in half lengthwise, with the clockwise halves being St. Andrew's cross, and the counterclockwise halves St. Patrick's.

It is off-centre, because you 'read' a flag in the anti-clockwise direction. If the St. Patrick's cross were central, this would afford it equal status to the St. Andrew's, which is incorrect. As Scotland is an equal member of the Union with England, and Ireland merely added later, the flag was designed so that you encounter the Scottish element first each time. Martocticvs 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Union Jack,I have concluded that the cross of St.Patrick is assymetrical in itself.

I see it as taking the shape of the cross of St.Brigid (another famous Irish saint with a cross originally woven from reeds), although longer and coloured red on a white ground. At the centre of this cross the four arms do not coincide but interlock like spokes of a wheel with a square hub. Such a cross is the logical shape you reach if you project the assymetrical arms of St. Patrick's cross in the Union Jack. 60.228.49.179 06:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the form the St Patrick's cross takes in the Union Jack is like that, however the "original" cross that the new UJ incorporated was a normal saltire like the St Andrew's cross. Martocticvs is actually not quite right, as if the St Patrick's cross were central, it would actually be over the top of the St Andrew's cross, giving it precedence, not equal status. Also, flags aren't read anti-clockwise, but Scotland is given slight precendence by being put in the honour point in the top part of the top hoist part of the cross. JPD (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Colors

At Union Jack#Specifications for flag use is a table specifying the flag's colors. The line just above the table cites [4], but I couldn't find anything relevant at the page. Flags of the World agrees that the colors are Panton 280 (blue) and Pantone 186 (red). But I think the RGB translations given are wrong. According to [5] or [6], those colors correspond to rgb(0,43,127) and rgb(206,17,38), which is what the actual flag image, Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg, uses. Does anyone know where the values in that table come from? dbenbenn | talk 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier in the page, there is no unique correspondence between Pantone shades (intended to describe printed material) and RGB values (intended to describe images on screens), so it is not really correct to say that the Pantone values correspond to rgb(0,43,127) and rgb(206,17,38). I presume that the link was intended to say that the info came from the Flag Institute in some form, but it would be good to have a better reference. I also think that we should not show any RGB or other specifications unless they are actually official in some sense. JPD (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. People put far too much stock in the idea that an online encyclopedia displayed on computer screens could provide an authoritative picture of a color. Whatever specifications govern the manufacture of flags for the UK government will be enough for a description here. --Dystopos 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reflectional Assymetry

Is the reflectional assymetry of the flag meant only so that a distinction can be made when the flag is flown upside-down as the article suggests, or is there more to this peculiarity?Loomis51 19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The original reason was to give Scotland precedence over Ireland. Does the paragraph read ok now? JPD (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag days

While information on days when the Union Jack is flown in various countries is obviously appropriate for an article entitled Union Jack, I would have thought that if we bother to have a separate article for Flag of the United Kingdom and a Royal Union Flag section at Flag of Canada, it is slightly redundant to include the information here as well. JPD (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Scottish" version

Someone added the statement "Until the Acts of Union 1707 it was practice for the flag in Scotland to have the Saltire over the St George's Cross and vice versa when flown in England" and the accompanying image. However, the Flags of the World site [7] seems to indicate there is scant evidence that this flag was ever used. Is there a source for this bold statement? --JW1805 (Talk) 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The FOTW page you mention says that the Scots did use that version. It doesn't provide a lot of evidence, but it hardly indicates that the evidence is scant! JPD (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the evidence presented at FOTW is scant. It says the flag "seems to have achieved some limited official sanction" (but this is only based on the interpretation of the word "interlaced". Then it mentions an engraving on Edinburgh Castle. And that's it. Is there some other reference that has stronger evidence of actual use? --JW1805 (Talk) 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have at hand any reference that actually goes into detail with the evidence, but that this version was used in Scotland/on Scottish ships is stated by many sources. Most don't state it as boldly as this article does at the moment, though - they simply say that it was used rather than imply it was always used. JPD (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a "citation needed" tag to this sentence. I just want to make sure it is properly referenced. If necessary, we can add some clarification or expansion of this topic. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag was removed, but I have restored it. The bold claim in the article needs a source. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the mention of the "Scottish" version as I was taught that in school and have seen the engraving of Edinburgh castle and seen a picture of that flag being flown in Dundee, unfortunately I have no sources, for which I apologise. Benson85 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Preposed Versions

The section called 'Other Preposed Versions', to me, looks as though it is in the wrong place. It follows the section called 'Since 1801', but discusses preposed variations of the pre-1801 flag. Logically, shouldn't this section follow 'The Union Flag before 1801'?--Jcvamp 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry - is that preposed or PROposed? Spelling correction needed? (I have not encountered the word "preposed" before). The royal website [[8]] calls it Union Flag. Everyone else I've ever heard talk about it has called it Union Jack. I support Union Jack. -- FClef (Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is PROposed.

Vivaverdi 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a spelling error. Anyway, anyone got any input on my question?--Jcvamp 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the section should be moved. JPD (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it, and if anyone has any objections, they can change it back.--Jcvamp 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This article contains the briefest of mentions as to the controversy which can surround the flying of the Union Flag in Northern Ireland. Surely that the flag is seen as a sectarian symbol by a significant proportion of the population of a region in the UK warrants more of a mention? (for something in the news today, see here.) Martin 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vexillogical symbols

As I am sure you have all heard, we call it the Union Flag when it is on land, and the Union Jack when it is at sea. The vexillogical symbology beneath the flag picture say that is is a Civil flag, a State flag and a War flag - therefore meaning that it is flown on land. How can this be the case if the title of the article is the Union Jack. Perhaps it could be flown in Naval bases as the Union Jack? But the definition of Civil flag is that civilans can fly it on land.

I don't really know how to remedy this, but I just wanted to show the mistake. --Gausie 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia removal

Well done

Vivaverdi 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's useful "trivia", and there's stuff which is pretty useless. The stuff that was removed certainly falls into the latter category, IMO! Jenny Wong 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Flying at sea

I was always under the impression that the Union Jack (note I'm talking about at sea, before I get flamed) is flown at the bow of a Royal Navy ship when it is flying the Royal Standard, or it is giving due escort to a Royal Navy ship flying the Royal Standard. However, as you will see from this picture: BBC News - Evacuations from Lebanon, the HMS Bulwark is flying the Union Flag at the bow. Does anyone know why this would be, judging it didn't have the monarch on board, or could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer to the correct flying of the Union Jack on HM Ships? My only other theory is it had the British Ambassador to the Lebanon on board, in which case, it could be this or this flag (as the boat is not underway, it would be exempt from flying the blue ensign). Thoughts? Suggestions? M0RHI 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably old news but HMS Bulwark is clearly alongside in the picture, so is correctly flying the Union Jack from the jackstaff. A distinguishing flag (eg for an embarked consular officer) would have been flown at the masthead.--Mandrake079 11:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on Terminology: Union Flag or Union Jack refers to flying the flag from the bow of a ship. I thought that a national flag was always flown from the gaff or the stern, not the bow. The exception, in UK, would be at the bow if the monarch is on board (or is accompanying...). Should the Terminology section be changed to reflect this? Michael Daly 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A jack is flown from the bow, as the terminology section says. The national ensign may be flown from the stern or the gaff. This is why some people insist that the term "union jack" only refers to the use of the flag at the bow of a ship, and in other cases it should be called the "union flag". The terminolgoy sections seems reasonably clear on this to me, but if you have suggested improvements, go ahead. JPD (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminality of civilian boats flying UF

" If any of the following colours, namely—

(a) any distinctive national colours except—
(i) the red ensign,
(ii) the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) with a white border, or
(iii) any colours authorised or confirmed under section 2(3)(b); or
(b) any colours usually worn by Her Majesty's ships or resembling those of Her Majesty, or
(c) the pendant usually carried by Her Majesty's ships or any pendant resembling that pendant,

are hoisted on board any British ship without warrant from Her Majesty or from the Secretary of State, the master of the ship, or the owner of the ship (if on board), and every other person hoisting them shall be guilty of an offence."

I.E. UF with white border is OK. Rich Farmbrough 14:01 8 August 2006 (GMT).

So Auntie is wrong, we are now right. Rich Farmbrough 14:05 8 August 2006 (GMT).

Arguably it is not longer the union flag when it has the white border, so it's a bit harsh to say they are wrong. This flag, initially used as a pilot flag, seems to have come to be used as a jack precisely because the union jack could not be flown by merchant vessels. JPD (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying a Union Flag from their boat? - Matthew238 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I've ever heard of, at least in recent times. Frek

Racism Trivia

"A well-known racist slogan in the UK is: There Ain't No Black In The Union Jack."

Is this entirely relevant? I don't think we need to spread this "slogan" about on an encyclopedia. Sparky 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not for things we like/don't like, but what is true. However you certainly could remove it on the grounds it adds little of value to the article Alci12 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I was quite careful not to express any strong emotion on the subject at all. I'll remove it, and preserve it here if anyone feels the need to restore it. Sparky 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was your use of 'need to spread' I was refering to, it seemed that you were suggesting that as it was racist we/wiki shouldn't repeat it which is obviously not correct. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant Alci12 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in the UK and i personally have never heard such a slogan being used.--Crimzon2283 12:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Union Jack redirect

Given the growing number of dab links at the head of this article, which refer to the redirected "Union Jack", it seems like Union Jack ought to be a dab page not a redirect here. --J Clear 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, have Union Jack (disambigation) at the top and keep this page how it is. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes the most sense to me. After all, Union Jack is most associated with the flag, rather than any of the things currently listed in the disamb section. Martocticvs 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, reading up, there has been some very acrimonious discussions about changing the name to various things, this would be treading on the least possible number of opinionated toes! Emoscopes ^Talk 16:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland

It was used as the flag in the colony of Newfoundland, and was used there during WW1 so therefore I think this should be added. People think the Republic of Newfoundland Flag was used during WW1 which it was not, the Union Jack was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseAgainst01 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Chinese flag name

What would be a good place to start looking for a source for the "Rice Flag" assertation? One need only go to Google Images and search for "米字旗", but that is not quite verifiable. Blast 04,03,07 0741 (UTC)

Background

I heard today that the 'background colour' of the jack is Blue. It was on an edition of WWTBAM.

I came here to check that fact but couldnt find a reference to it. Just thought it might be useful to append that fact somewhere.. assuming its true.--Nasher 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

Is saying 2+2=5 is wrong a point of view?

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than making sarcastic comments, you consider firstly what the NPOV policy has to say about situations when there are differing views and secondly exactly what standard could be used to judge whether an English language term is "incorrect". The first section of this article covers the issue quite adequately without inserting supposedly authoritative statements in the intro. JPD (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was PAGE MOVED per WP:COMMONNAME and per discussion below. It's clear that there is some reason for asserting that "Union Flag" is the more correct name, but "Union Jack" is certainly the more common name at this time. The article does address the question of "Jack" vs. "Flag" in the article's first section, so readers will be aware of the issue.

Meanwhile, given that we apply WP:COMMONNAME across thousands of articles, I don't see that those suggesting "oppose" give sufficient reason why this article should be an exception. If "Union Flag" becomes the more common term, or if we change our naming conventions, or if a consensus develops that this article should be an exception, then I could see the article moving back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Union Flag → Union Jack — The Oxford English Dictionary does not acknowledge the term Union Flag in its full version. Nor does Encyclopaedia Britannica. The BBC uses the term Union Jack exclusively too following a mass of complaints from the public. Wikipedia is the first entry in Google when searching for Union Jack, and should follow the trends set by acclaimed reference sources. Only a handful of people pushed for the change, as can be seen in the 'discuss' tab on "Union Jack Flag" —217.158.65.178 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Created discussion space on behalf of the editor who listed this at WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey, April

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Support:

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In history books and mass media Union Jack is by far the most common name. 205.157.110.11 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The controversy surrounding the name can be (and is) addressed adequately in the text. Wikipedia should keep a neutral point of view on the controversy, therefore the common name should be used. --Dystopos 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Union flag" is extremely ambiguous (e.g., this, this, and maybe this or this?) —  AjaxSmack  02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Union flag is ambiguous; in American it would mean the flag of the United States of America. Union Jack is common usage; as the quotation above "the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack)" makes clear. We are not here to confuse our readers, but to communicate with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  Note that "in American", “Union Jack” would refer to Jack of the United States, so that’s kind of a wash. --jacobolus (t) 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support "Union Jack" is by far the most commonly used term, so WP:COMMONNAME makes this page move a straightforward one. Masaruemoto 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - most reasons for opposing this appear to be that "Union Flag" is the official name, even though it is the lesser used term. Unfortunately this goes against Wikipedia naming conventions. WP:NC(CN) is very clear on this, the whole point is to makes things easier for the average reader. Crazysuit 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Oppose — Just because the term is popular, doesn't mean it's right. A jack is a flag on a ship. — OwenBlacker 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment moved from WP:RM --Stemonitis 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose — once upon a time, "Union Jack" was indeed the overwhelmingly common name and thus the proper location. But in my experience MANY PEOPLE are now aware of the Union Jack / Union Flag terminology issues; today "Union Flag" is no longer an obscure phrase used only by only a small handful of initiates. If anything, people care about it TOO much today. As for the ambiguity argument advanced by AjaxSmack— "Union Jack" is (as the article notes) just as ambiguous. Doops | talk 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Union Flag is the correct and official name of the flag. Union Jack is in common circulation, but the term Union Flag is being used far more widely than in the recent past as people are beginning to become aware of its proper name. The Admiralty has said that either term is acceptable, but given the above reasons, moving to Union Jack would be inappropriate. Martocticvs 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been discussed before. Both terms are ambiguous (see the disambig), and Union Flag is the more correct for this article. --jacobolus (t) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Comment: There has been much discussion on this talk page about what the title of the article should be. There was even an official proposal that it be renamed from Union Jack to Union Flag, which passed. That's why the current title of the article is Union Flag. Spylab 13:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, and there wasn't much consensus at the time. It also appears to have been a straight vote, rather than a discussion. I don't see the harm in discussing this further. Dekimasuよ! 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

requested move: seriously?

Seriously? A margin of six to four was considered sufficient to close the discussion and move the page? The big problem with the new location is that now we're going to have a bunch of pedants pestering us to move it back, and they'll have the moral high ground. This was one of those times when giving into the pedants was painless and wise. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my vote above, I deny the notion "Union Jack" is the overwhelmingly common name today -- just a few years ago it was, but "Union Flag" wording really has become quite popular lately, in my experience. Doops | talk 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. It's not about a margin of six to four, because the discussion isn't a vote. It appears that "Union Jack" is the more common term, so I closed the move in accordance with our policy on naming (WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things) and in accordance with thousands of other articles.

I'm happy for my decision to be reviewed, and if the community consensus is that I was wrong to move the page, I certainly won't oppose moving it back, but from my experience, there's a pretty strong consensus behind WP:COMMONNAME, as being the most neutral way we can decide naming questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thought - it might be helpful to gather evidence indicating how major English language sources handle this question. If usage has shifted to the degree you suspect, that should be reflected in increasing numbers of publications, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, I'm torn. The commoname guideline page does provide a strong argument against your move: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. (It gives tsunami/tidal wave as an example; just because until recently practically everybody (except me!) called a tsunami a tidal wave doesn't make the term correct.) But, see, on this Union Flag / Union Jack issue I've never considered myself a fundamentalist; I've always had a "live and let live" attitude. Doops | talk 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was curious, so I checked. Googling (English only, Wikipedia excluded) for "Tsunami" and "Tidal wave" supports the former, correct name, by a ratio of eight to one. I don't mean by saying that to disagree that your comparison is valid; it's just a point of interest. Maybe it's not the best example for that guideline to be using.

I agree that this case is a judgment call, where there's a more common, but less correct name, and we just have to judge those on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps I was hasty to move the article based on the above request. Before making any more hasty page moves, why don't we try to get input from more Wikipedians? Does an article RFC sound like a good idea to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as 'tsunami' is concerned, the December 2004 tsunami completely changed things ... suddenly the whole word learned a new word. The issue is, as you say, a judgement call turning on two questions: 1) how strong a popularity advantage does "union jack" have over "union flag" ? and 2) how "wrong" is "union jack" ? • As far as your moving the page is concerned, if you did it simply as a private individual "being bold" that would of course be fine; but by "closing" the discussion above (putting the box around it, changing the background color, etc. etc.) you seemed to claim an unwarranted degree of definitiveness to your decision. Hence my "seriously?" schtick. • But I'm blabbering on far too much; other people have put far more effort and emotion into this page than I. Probably I'm just avoiding the Real World. :) (Which is to say: an RFC is fine by me; but my opinion doesn't really matter.) Doops | talk 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not a huge fan of the colored-box way of doing things, but when people set up formal survey-type discussions, it's kind of expected. I exercised my discretion in closing the discussion and moving the page, but I'm not heavily invested in it. If I was wrong, I'll learn something and move on. All that brought my attention here was that it was the last item in the backlog at requested moves.

I'll post in a couple of places asking for more opinions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A vote of six to four was clearly insufficient consensus for a move. You don't get to interpret policy as you like and then say that a move which is clearly going to be controversial is okay because you're just "following policy". Policy must be interpreted, and it has heretofore been interpreted in a way that this article should be at Union Flag. I agree with Doops that the move was inappropriate. The result was clearly "no consensus." john k 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "Union Flag" is a better title, or just that the closure was improper? Those are separate questions, right? My understanding is that I am expected to exercise discretion in closing moves, and such actions have been upheld when posted for review to the Administrators' noticeboard in the past. I'll go ahead and post there requesting review for this closure.

My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that I'm to consider arguments, not vote-counts (per WP:NOT a democracy), and even if I were "counting votes", the one admin I know of who closes moves that way uses 60% as a threshhold number, which is precisely the percent supporting in this case, so I think it's within the range where discretion plays a strong role. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I will say that I am agnostic, but that I see a fair degree of merit in the "union jack is misleading" side of the thing. At any rate, after a week, with only 10 people voting, one of them an anon, and a vote of 6 to 4, it seems generally inappropriate to move. The proper thing to do, I think, would have been to solicit more participation and see if a consensus appeared. As to "considering arguments, not vote-counts," it is true that "wikipedia is not a democracy," but why on earth do we have votes if you're just going to ignore them and do what you want anyway? You could have moved the article without doing an RM at all. This would have been arguably fine, but having a vote and then ignoring its results is ridiculous. john k 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, it says at the top of every RM discussion "Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight". We don't have "votes" over page moves; we have discussions. If we make decisions based on numbers and voting, then we've sold any idea of neutrality to the tyranny of the majority. I don't know why you think I "ignored" anything in the discussion; I read the whole discussion, took everything into account and made a decision. My decision seems to be receiving support at WP:AN#Request review of pagemove. Nevertheless; thanks for your feedback; I'll keep this case in mind when closing move requests in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "not a vote" in that it is not to be decided by a majority. It is to be decided by consensus, which there was not here. The "not a vote" is a warning that things aren't decided by a majority, not a license to do whatever you want. john k 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who do you think put the "not a vote" text in the survey template, John? That's right; I did. Thus, while I appreciate being lectured on what it means, I think I have some idea. "Not a vote" means that the decision is based on arguments, and not on numbers. You're right that we base decisions on consensus, and there is a broad consensus behind our policy of using common names. The fact that all the people who have supported that policy in thousands of cases aren't on this talk page right now is not license to ignore them.

Furthermore, I certainly do not assume that I have licence to "do whatever I want". What I "want" is not remotely a factor in my considerations. I have no "wants" relating to the title of this article. I do my best to apply policy, as I understand it, consistently and fairly. Two other admins have endorsed that I made a correct, or at least reasonable, call; if you think I'm out of line, you're welcome to file an RfC, or whatever.

In the future, if I encounter a similar situation, I'll probably be more likely to relist the request at the top of WP:RM and try to find more people to weigh in. My intention was to close the move according to my understanding of Wikipedia policies; I wasn't trying to cause any kind of strife. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we all can accept that you acted in good faith. I disagree with your decision — in my view there was neither a consensus of votes (even if some admins think that 60-40 is workable consensus, 6-4 definitely isn't; just think about elementary statistics!) nor was there true clarity on the grounds of argument (both sides were actively advancing reasonable arguments and counterarguments against each other; some valid points from both sides hadn't yet drawn a response; the commonname policy, while certainly very relevant, wasn't crystal-clear here, etc.) — but I at least am certainly not up-in-arms against you personally. Cheers, Doops | talk 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What Doops said, largely. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, I will accept that you have no particular personal preferences here, and I'm certainly not going to start an RfC. That being said, I think it is almost always the wrong choice when one person decides arbitrarily that one side's arguments "aren't valid", and thus that they're going to ignore the lack of consensus and move a page. As has been established on numerous occasions, the "Use common names" rule is not absolute, and can be overrided for any number of reasons. In a case where clearly at least a large minority of interested persons opposed the change, it at least behooves one to step back and look for more input before making a move. I think you behaved rather cavalierly, and that, at least, further discussion prior to a move would have been a good idea. And, again, the whole move process is something of a joke if anyone can do whatever they want based on their "assessment of the argument". Why do we make it look like a vote and have a whole formalized template and everything, if any admin can just move it to wherever they feel is appropriate at the end? If it's not a vote in any way, it shouldn't look like a vote. This whole process feels flawed - it is both bureaucratic and arbitrary. john k 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John k, reading over my earlier post, I'd like to apologize for my tone. I was unnecessarily bitchy, and I'm sorry. I also apologize for the length of this reply; I'm not clever enough to make it shorter, it seems.

------

I think you're right that getting more discussion before closing the request would have been a good idea. The conversation we're having now is proof of that.

------

Regarding the page move itself... I've closed a lot of move requests, and I'd say most of the really controversial ones have been related to WP:COMMONNAME. It's not the most well-liked policy (guideline, whatever), but it seems to be held as "law of the land" by experienced Wikipedians. In my observation, moves consistent with it tend to stick, despite the inevitable objections, and moves made (or not made) at variance with it tend to be reversed eventually, when more Wikipedians notice the aberration. This is because COMMONNAME does represent a strong consensus, established over a long time.

Many people disagree with applications of COMMONNAME. "Starfish" are not fish, and "Sea star" is less misleading, and increasingly used by experts... but it's still significantly less common than "starfish". I guess Wikipedia is helping resist the change to the "more accurate" term by using the more common one as our title. However, I understand why we do it: Otherwise, we have to decide which name is more correct in each case, and that involves taking sides in way too many disputes.

One could point out that following COMMONNAME also involves taking a side - namely the side of descriptive linguistics versus linguistic prescription - and I guess I would grant that point. Yes, we take that side. Description is more consistent with NPOV than prescription, because we don't make decisions about who gets to prescribe.

------

Regarding the move process... The survey template has been modified, and does look more like a vote than it used to; that should probably be changed back. I do agree that I didn't make the best decision in this case - it would have been better to leave the discussion open for another week and direct more people to it - but I don't think it's wrong that closers are allowed discretion. The alternative allows for situations where people can force non-neutral decisions with sheer numbers. We can't be held hostage to our own processes.

If I make a call that needs to be reversed, then it's easy to do that (a non-admin could revert me, in this case), and I certainly won't revert war. If I make enough bad calls, then I should lose the buttons, fair's fair, but there has to be a way to overrule a pile-on that's contrary to policy. (I'm not describing this case as such, but they do occur.)

------

Anyway, back to the here and now, if you think we should move the article back, then I think a new move request, or an article RfC, or some hybrid of the two, would be appropriate. It wouldn't hurt to leave notes at some relevant WikiProject pages and talk pages, maybe the Village Pump. Bringing more people to the table can only help clarify consensus. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus" imo Brian | (Talk) 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the result of the discussion was, the fact is that both names are "correct". (A name is a name - the Union Jack does not need to be a jack, a quantum group is not a group, various flags have been called blue/red ensigns even when not used as ensigns.) There is a good argumetn for using UJ, as the common name, but that is countered by the increasingly large number of people who either (incorrectly) think it is incorrect or simply prefer the "less misleading" name. I would say there was no need to move it, but there is no need to move it back, either. JPD (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the statement that "description is more consistent with NPOV than prescription" is an excellent analysis of the controversy. --Dystopos 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but it doesn't make everything simple, because as was mentioned in the discussion, the "prescription" brigade are having an increasing impact on general usage. JPD (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For me it does simplify the matter, because as much as I support precision in language, I want this reference to instruct the reader on matters of fact, not on matters of opinion. The common usage should be preferred and the "prescription brigade" should fight its battles elsewhere. --Dystopos 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on principle, but in this case the question is perhaps changing from "Should we use common usage or the term that is promoted as correct?" to "Which term is actually the more common usage, now that the prescriptionists have convinced a lot of people?" I tend to think Union Jack is still the more common usage, but it possibly won't be in the future, and drawing the line is never going to be easy. JPD (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that -- there are two questions really: 1) how 'right' are the union flag people? 2) how much more popular is union jack? Our decision regarding page name is based on the interplay of these two calculations. Regarding calculation 1, I want to make the point that there is the possibility of shades of grey. Union Flag fanatics think it's all or nothing; the score is 100%:0%. Absolute descriptivists think that there's no such thing as 'right'; the score is by definition 50%:50%. I think both these views are overly simplistic and facile. Absolute descriptivism sounds wonderful and noble and allows us to feel all smug about how non-judgemental we are, so I admit it's tempting; but it's not real. Consider the absolute descriptivist, and look at his/her speech -- he/she will have personal preferences which probably differ signficantly from those of the population at large. To give a concrete example: even though I'm writing so much on this talk page, I actually don't care much about "union jack"; when I see it elsewhere in the wikipedia I certainly never "correct" it to Union Flag. But crest I am absolutely fanatical about -- no matter how commonplace it is to hear people use that word wrong (and, believe me, it's very commonplace) I correct it EVERY TIME I see it used wrong in the wikipedia. (My gut reaction in such cases: "We're a respectable encyclopedia and can't allow that sort of sloppiness!") Examine your souls, 'absolute descriptivists', and see whether ye do not likewise for some word (phrase, grammatical point, etc.) or other. Life is messy. Doops | talk 16:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I may be coming around. Indulge me as I think aloud... WP:COMMONNAME may conflict with the principle of proper usage when making links to this article from other articles. I can see that it could be preferred, in, say the Gallery of flags with crosses, to use "Union Flag" to link to this article if that term is, indeed, preferred. Should we then require, in order to satisfy "proper prescriptive" usage with "neutral descriptive" article naming, that the link be structured as [[Union Jack|Union Flag]]? That would clearly be nitpicking. So then we are left with (as noted above) the question of "how right is it?" Can we not cite an official word, directly addressing the controversy (as we have called it) from a source more directly authoritative than the text of a 1995 merchant shipping act and an internal document on BBC style. Who exactly are the vexillologists referred to as publishing "official" documents? It seems that direct.gov.uk uses "Union Flag", but gives "Union Jack" equal weight wherever the subject is introduced with no reference whatsoever to a controversry or to a "proper" usage. Perhaps we give too much voice to the prescriptionist camp by even claiming that a controversy exists. Perhaps the terms are equivalent to all but the most excruciatingly fussy pedants. (like myself). --Dystopos 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page back, because as far I could see there was no consensus for a page move in either the vote or the discussion above — with some wavering. The vote was 5-4 (anon votes do not count) for a move to Union Jack, way TOO close for any move! I think you will find that BOTH Union Flag and Union Jack are common names in the UK. Marco79 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made some errors. "Anon votes do not count" is absolutely incorrect. Anonymous editors write Wikipedia, and their opinions are entirely welcome. You also seem to think that there was a "vote" going on, too, which is absolutely incorrect. As far as the move being improper, I asked about that at WP:AN, and two other admins said I did the right thing, with nobody opposing. You certainly haven't replied to the argument about description versus prescription, either.

I won't reverse your move, but I can't let those inaccuracies and omissions go by without comment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments:

1. "'Anon votes do not count' is absolutely incorrect." I have to disagree with this statement, and yes anons do have opinions, which are welcome so long as they are constructive. But maybe see where I'm comming from, in the past when I was editing as an anon — not too long ago — I had quite a few of my "Survey Opinoins" rejected because I was an anon (this was one of the things that spurred me on to become a registered user). Now please tell me if anything has changed, because I was under the impression that an anon — and new users as well — were unknown entities, where they could be anyone and everyone, and maybe even established users with an agenda. That is why I thought and still feel their "Survey Opinions" do not count, but their comments are aways welcome.
2. I did not think there was a "vote" occurring and I did know it was a survey, but old habits die hard. I actually used it for want of a better word. I do remember it was once called a vote, but a while back there was quite a discussion about it and it was agreed that vote was a bad term to use or something like that, but I digress. I apologise if there was any misunderstandings in my use of "vote", not meaning it in its strictest sense.
3. Well, it looked improper to me, with only a 5-4 opinion in favour of a move, still way TOO close for a move. Shouldn't the survey have been noted on the article;s page that a "Survey" was in progress to perhaps get a wider view on such a controversial move. Perhaps the survey should have been left open for a month? (Note: just a suggestion.) – Marco79 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were discounted in surveys when you were editing as an IP address, that was wrong, and I'm sorry that happened to you. It's true that in ArbCom elections and board elections, which actually are elections, only established accounts get votes. In deletion, undeletion and move discussions however, it's been my understanding for years that IPs carry as much weight as anybody else (unless there's reason to suspect sock-puppetry or something).

As far as I'm concerned, nobody's vote "counts" in a move discussion, because it's just not about counting. If one person makes a policy based argument that makes sense, and fifty people just say they like it better the other way, then we go with the one. (That never happens, because if there's only one arguing policy against fifty, then more will show up to support the one.) If you don't believe me, I can only suggest that you ask around - check with people who've been closing deletion discussions and the like for years; see what they say. There are a few admins who treat these things like votes, and "count" or "don't count" opinions as they see fit, but that's discouraged.

I think you're right that I was too hasty closing the discussion in the state it was in. Bumping it to the top of the RM queue to give it five more days (at least) would have been a better idea, because the discussion had not gotten to the point of clarifying how policy applies in this case. I don't think I was wrong because of "5-4" or "6-4" or some numbers game; I think I was wrong because it would have been better to try and round up some more input instead. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the move back. If some people want to move from the professional Union Flag to the unprofessional colloquialism Union "Jack" (sic) then they will have to gain a clear consensus, which was totally absent from the recent discussion. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. --Mais oui! 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You called it unprofessional, called it a colloquialism, put scare quotes around it, and put (sic) afterwards. Don't four negatives cancel out to equal a positive? So I guess you're not a fan of descriptive linguistics, either? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to keep moving it back and forth, whatever our opinions. I have to disagree with those who say "how right are the union flag people?" is a relevant question. To say "Union Jack" is an unprofessional colloquialism is to ignore its long history of use in legislation and other formal situations. It is a totally different issue to the misuse of "crest", where a word with a technical meaning is commonly given a different meaning, because this is about a two-word name that happens to include a word with a technical meaning. Calling something the "Union Jack" does not necessarily imply that it is a jack - names do not work in that way. The fact that it may be taken that way is an argument for choosing a different name to start with, or even for using a different name (compare with tidal waves becoming tsunamis), but it is never Wikipedia's place to make that decision. We can only follow outside usage, possibly putting more emphasis on professional usage than everyday usage, but not using our own ideas of what is better. JPD (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think we generally agree regarding how to approach usage, we should also admit that on the subject of national symbols, that the authority governing the use of those symbols should be given some weight. I am coming to the conclusion that there is really no controversy -- that both terms are fully correct -- and that with no clear preference for either, we would not be erring to follow the prescription in current use by vexillologists. --Dystopos 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think there is a problem with leaving it here, but I will point out that not all vexillologists are so prescriptive! JPD (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we're seeing a bit of a consensus for "Union Flag". I apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks for the lesson. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Topics not covered

I don't know if these are covered -

• The Square Union Flag [9]
• The difference in colour between the official St Andrew's cross and the Union Flag background (approved by the Scottish parliament)
• The flag with black, instead of blue, and in the pan-African colours.
• The rainbow Jack.

--MacRusgail 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

---

You tube?

Is You tube putting the Union Flag upside down on there site notable enough to be put on here. Buc 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we stop all the fussin' and a-feudin and call it...

The Flag of the United Kingdom?--Steven X 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the Union Flag details the history and development and the Flag of the United Kingdom coincides with the other national flag articles. Reginmund 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)