Talk:Flag of Australia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Useful References

A few useful references for helping bring the article up to scratch. --Martyman-(talk) 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Construction sheet

The SVG image in the Construction sheet section doesn't show up in either Firefox or IE for me. --Joshd 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Australian Flags table: dates

It is not clear in this tabel what the dates refer to. For the Aboriginal flag, 1971 is given, the date the flag was first flown. It was proclaimed a national flag in 1995. For the Torres Strait Islander flag, the date 1995 is given, the date it was proclaimed a national flag. It was designed in 1992. We should have date of design or date of proclamation, or both dates and it should be clear what the date refers to.--A Y Arktos 10:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should stay at all, and if it does, the gallery must be abandoned. --cj | talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to clarify the dates, but I don't really care if they are in the table or not.--nixie 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just placed in date order, and it raised the question for me - why were the states' flags proclaimed on very different dates as official Australian flags? Anybody know?--A Y Arktos 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Each state was essentially independant prior to 1901, so responsible for their own flag. I'm not sure if the dates in the article are correct, according to the NSW government's website (source) their flag dates from 1876, and I'd expect most other state's flags would have been from around the same time Mako 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They're not the state flags, they are the flags of the state govenors.--nixie 11:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The flags there are the state governor's flags, not the state flags - the table should reflect this. The dates are as described at [1]. I'm not really sure about having this gallery in the article. JPD (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is intereting that Australia actaully has 16 official flags, and it is useful for the reader to be able to see them. Since its early stages in the reworking of the article the section might not stay as it looks now.--nixie 11:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's interesting, but the gallery takes up a lot of space. Anyway, there are 26 "official flags" - whatever Ausflag means by that. It seems strange to include the governor's flags, but only mention the state flags. It would make more sense to me to only list/show the flags proclaimed as a "flag of Australia" in this article, not the ones that are official as flags in individual states. Ausflag doesn't make it clear which is which - other sources say it is only the various ensigns based on the national flag, the defence force ensign and the indigenous flags. Obviously the section might not stay as it looks now - that's why we're talking about it here. JPD (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of dates again, I think the dates either need to be left out, or clarified even more. On the whole, I find using a single date for a each flag in a list bound to be difficult, but it might work here. Using 1995 for the indigenous peoples flags implies that it is the date proclaimed as a Flag of Australia, or at least in some way recognised by a government body. The flags were definitely adopted by others before then. The RAAF flag is a more interesting case - should the date refer to the design, or the fact that the RAAF had a flag? In 1922, the RAF flag was adopted as the RAAF flag. A unique flag was chosen in 1948, and the current version was adopted/proclaimed as a Flag of Australia in 1982. If we use 1922 for this flags, then we can't use the dates we have for the governor's flags, as earlier versions of these existed as well. JPD (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the dates since they are sort of confusing. I made the gallery based on the list that was formerly in the article of flags approved as offfical flags of Australia - I counted 16. I have emailed the relevant part of the Prime Minsters office for clarification. I doubt that the flags of the the States and Territories are listed under the Flags Acts as "Flags of "Australia" since they are not technically flags of Australia - but flags of subnational entites (Ausflag is probably counting them as official flags, hence the numerical disparity). If there are only 16 I think the gallery can stay - it could be broken into smaller sections if more deail was added for each of the official flags, the text could also explain the dates confusion. It could be divided into Aboriginal/Torres Strait; Queen, Gov General and State Govenors and Defence sections.--nixie 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a better option. Galleries just don't look good in articles.--cj | talk 03:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the small galleries in Flag of Mexico are very effective.--nixie 03:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the state flags have probably not been proclaimed as "Flags of Australia", but the same goes for the governor's of the state flags. The article listed those 16 as the official flags other than the statutory flags and state flags. The source for this is Ausflag, which isn't very clear about which ones are proclaimed under the Flags Act and which are official for other reasons. I'm not really sure that we need to add too much detail about any of these flags, most of which have articles of their own, but it would make sense to restrict it to only national-level flags. I agree with Cyberjunkie about the gallery (the Mexico one is much smaller, and serves a different purpose), but I guess it's not a major issue. JPD (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to be rid of the gallery, but I think we should provide some minimal level of information about each flag that is listed under the Act, and some representative images. Hopefully the PMs offic and/or Ausflag get back to me soon so we know which flags are which.--nixie 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should definitely at least list the flags proclaimed as Flags of Australia, especially given the title of the article is what it is, not "Australian National Flag"! I'm not too optimistic about the PMs office - their website lists a few, but leaves out some that definitely were proclaimed under the flags act. JPD (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How about a 4 flag gallery with the Queens flag, the Tri-service flag, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Flags?--nixie 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm wary of including the Tri-service flag, but not the other military ensigns. The RAN and RAAF ensigns are definitely flags representing Australian nationality, as used by the particular forces, whereas it is not clear whether the Tri-service flag is simply the flag of the Defence Force. Then again, if it is just to give an illustration, and is obviously not a complete list, it might be good. JPD (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the reference "BillsDigest42" backs my understanding that the only flags proclaimed under section 5 are the RAN Ensign, RAAF Ensign, Aboriginal Flag, TSI Flag and ADF Ensign. JPD (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Official flag gallery

Now that we only have five, it would be good to have a table like the other one. The two issues I can see are - would five flags fit well? and would it be copyvio to show the Aboriginal and TSI flags? Also, it would be good to get hold of the date on which the RAN Ensign was actually proclaimed under the Flags Act, then we could include the dates for it and the RAAF Ensign. I don't know whether the pre-81 RAAF ensign was ever proclaimed under the act. JPD (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the five would look OK in a table like the one in the history section. the Aborigial and Torres Striat Islander flags would definately be fair use in an article like this as they are being discussed in their role as "Flags of Australia" and are only being shown as thumbs (I added rationales to each already for use in this article). Foley lists the RAN Ensign as being proclaimed under the flags act on 1 March 1967. The RAA Ensign is a bit more complicated, the 1948 design was approved by King George and adopted in 1949. The current version was proclaimed pursutant to the flags act in 1982.--nixie 02:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I put together a table displaying the other official flags at User:Martyman/Sandbox3. I hope they are the 5 you are refering to. --Martyman-(talk) 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
They're the right ones, thanks.--nixie 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Just to explain - I think the history detail in the intro is necessary, otherwise people will get quite worked up about simplifications such as "not proclaimed as official flag until 1954". Although "British Blue Ensign" may not be strictly necessary, it is a good idea, especially as it is quite valid to call the national flag the Australian blue ensign, and simiilarly for other defacements of the blue ensign. JPD (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On the British blue ensign, all blue ensigns are based off the British version, it's redundant, like saying I have a Chinese dim sum.--nixie 11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, if I use the phrase "blue ensign" in a purely Australian context, it probably means the Australian national flag. There are other flags (the Customs flag, for example) that could be described as defaced (Australian) blue ensigns. That clearly isn't what is meant here, so it could be seen as redundant to say "British", but it does reduce the chances for confusion. It is slightly odd for the article to use "blue ensign" as though that obviously means the British one, and then later use it to refer to the Australian blue ensign (as opposed to the red). JPD (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Table or text

Originally I had put a table in the construction section showing the stars details, it's in this version, I tend to think that the text as is looks better, but I was wondering that other people think.--nixie 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the text, as long as everyone thinks it reads well enough, particularly the part about the diameters. I think that needs to be included, either as text before/after the positions (as it is now), or with the positions in a table. JPD (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

History

Should the hisotry section mention flags pre 1901? In addition to the first Union and current union flags which were both used in the Colony there were a few attempts at national flags in the lead up to federation.--nixie 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A short mention wouldn't hurt. The Federation Flag in particular deserves a mention, as Barton preferred it, and even sent it to London as an alternative to the winning design. As for the union flags, we could say that as Australia was British colonies, the Union Flag was used along with flags for individual colonies.
On a similar topic, is it worth saying anything more about how the flag was used 1901-54, to replace the copyvio? JPD (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the military stuff is especially relvant - it's largely the domain of the pro-flag people. The indecision over the Red vs. Blue Ensign prior to 1953 as the civil flag is definately worth mentioning. --nixie 11:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is often talked about by pro-flag people, but having a few facts usually avoids people trying to make massive generalisations either way. (BTW, I don't think it's copyvio - at least one of the anons getting worked up on the talk page was the guy from the AFS.) JPD (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Several sections of the old text were idential to those on http://www.flagsociety.org.au/Australian-National-Flag.htm, unless we have explicit permission to uses someone elses text in bulk we really shouldn't be doing so.--nixie 11:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should remove it (we probably don't want all the details anyway) - I was just pointing out that is was probably contributed by the guy that wrote it in the first place. Then again, there also used to be whole paragraphs from the ANFA website, so who knows. JPD (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The current version almost implies that the Anti-Transportation League flag was intended as a national flag. I was thinking that this flag and the Eureka flag should be left to other parts of the section/article, mentioned only as influences on the Australian flag, but I can see reasons for having them there, as long as it doesn't suggest it was meant to be a national flag. JPD (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just rework it as you see fit.--nixie 13:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we also mention the winner of the Evening Herald competition [2], which was included in the Review of Review competition that was "adopted" by the government? JPD (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mabye mention that there were other competitions, but I can't see were it mentions on that page that any entires from the other competitions were ever adopted in any offical capacity.--nixie 13:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The Review of Reviews announcement mentions that hte prize only applies if the winner is better than the Evening Herald design. Foley is quoted saying that the RoR entries were turned over to the Government competition, the letter from the RoR says the competitions were almagamated. I guess there isn't really a direct link shown between the Evening Herald design and the government competition, but it is an example of some of the alternatives that were floating around and possibly submitted.
Thanks for removing the "unquestionably", btw. The sentence definitely didn't come out the way I had intended. I'm not sure how far we can go with Foley saying the flag was "chosen" in 1953, though. Menzies said he was formalising what was already the common practice, and both he and Chifley treated it as the de facto national flag in their comments in the 1940s. JPD (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with the acceptance of the blue ensign is that, as far as I have read, noone ever asked the public, so we can never really know which flag was in widest use and which one the public supported. The only record is of Menzies' and Chiefly's 41 and 47 directives to use the blue ensign.--nixie 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we don't know exactly how popular it was. The most we have is Menzies' comment that the Act was formalising what was already common practice in 1953. This could have been already the case in 1941, or been a result of Menzies' and Chifley's directives, or of the approval by George VI in 51 (waht's the source for that, btw?). Anyway, since we say the flag was "put forth" as the national flag in 41, 47, 51, is it really appropriate to say anything about the Flags Act in 1953, other than it legislated the status of the flag? JPD (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The 1951 approval is mentioned here and in some of the hard copy sources I have. Thanks for noticing the Flags approved under the act - we can modify the other flags section. It should proably just mention the 5.--nixie 10:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to reword the bit around 1941-1954, since Menzies' push to adopt the blue ensign started well before 1953, and depending on the exact nature of the King's approval in 51, it already was officially the national flag by 53. However, I personally would be inclined to leave out the "speculation", partly because it's not much more than speculation, and also because while it might have been a factor in 1953, I doubt it was the original reason in 1941. Does anyone object to this? JPD (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem.--nixie 11:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Are the RGB values in the table also from Australian Symbols? I haven't seen them before, and it's not a good idea to include specifications unless they are official. There is not a single way to convert between Pantone, RGB, CMYK, etc. JPD (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All the Symbols book has is the Pantone, the Symbols book is the only place I could find any infomation. I did the conversion to RGB with Paint, I don't mind dropping the RGB info if it could be problematic.--nixie 11:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's actually quite unusual for flags to have official RGB specifications, as they are meant to be in cloth, not on a screen. Since there isn't a reliable way of converting, I think it's best to leave them out. JPD (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Government Style Guide (http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn45358) states the following colors for when the Australian Flag is depicted on web sites:
White = #FFFFFF
Blue = #00008B
Red = #FF0000
They also suggest that the Blue be #000099 when using Web Safe 216 colors, though this info is pretty much redundant nowadays. Ian Fieggen 02:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention around this point in the article that the colors used in the National Flag are not the National colors of Australia ? To avoid confusion . Lejon 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag Burning

Did anyone else see the news yesterday where they claimed someone was sentanced to three years jail for burning the flag? Interesting seeign burning of the Australian flag is not against the law. I think the truth is that he was jailed for stealing and burning someone elses property (RSL club's flag) and probably other offenses aswell. --Martyman-(talk) 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the charges were - one count of entering a building with the intent of committing an indictable offence and one of malicious damage by fire. [3] but "flag buring" makes a good headline with the Australian media playing up the race-war angle.--nixie 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's perfectly legal to burn a flag if you own it (and there's no fire ban, etc). But the history section is fairly long, and the flag burning issue doesn't really deserve to be there. Should it get it's own section, or go at the end of Protocol? JPD (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think at the end of protocol would be best, I think it fits best there and I think the article has about the right number of sections as is.--nixie 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Would anyone be opposed to me merging Flags of the Australian states and territories and List of Australian flags (the former to the later) since they basically duplicate the same informtaion?--nixie 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that.--cj | talk 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds splendid //Big Adamsky 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Do it. —Nightstallion (?) 07:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't anything to merge, so I simply redirected it.--cj | talk 09:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
There were a few territorial flags in one and not the other, I've shifted them across.--nixie 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter that those are unofficial?--cj | talk 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We can add that to the table I suppose.--nixie 09:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Centenary Flag

Since the desecration material has moved, would this section be more appropriate added to the hisotry section?--nixie 10:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Its presentation as a centenary flag seems to make it belong in history. Its use as a ceremonial flag of state makes me think it's more along the lines of the Banderas Monumentales section in Flag of Mexico. JPD (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think it should probably come after -other flags- (I'll probably expand this to a more rounded paragraph over the weekend) and before the flag debate section. --nixie 11:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. I put it before "other flags", because it is special version of the flag the article is mainly about, rather than a completely separate flag. JPD (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose.--nixie 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Table

Does anyone have any idea why the Eureka flag is showing up slightly larger than the others? JPD (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Eureka Flag isn't 1:2, it is 13:20, there is lots of good info on the flag here.--nixie 12:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes... so the 100px in the image markup is the width, rather than the height of the image? IMHO the flags would look better with the same height. JPD (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you know how to adjust it to make it so, then you sould do it.--nixie 12:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried it at User:JPD/Sandbox. Do you think it's better? JPD (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Do you think that it would look better if there was no background colour, it might be harder to tell that we're using a table rather than a gallery.--nixie 13:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That does look better JPD. Nixie, what did you have in mind? Did you mean making the entire thing transparent so it looks as if it's floating, or did you mean just remove/replace the background. I think it looks good as is, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using a table over a gallery.--cj | talk 13:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I tried it without the background color. It also looked a bit spread out, so I've got a few options in the sandbox now. JPD (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The images in the last option are a good size, would it be possible to centre the text under each flag?--nixie 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Last option now has centred captions. Of course, this makes it more obvious that it's not a gallery, but it looks much better, so that shouldn't matter. I like this version. JPD (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the first and third options (although with text centred). I don't like the white background at all; it strikes me as odd when all other boxes (images, toc, templates) are grey. Also, though I'm not sure why, all images apart the Eureka Flag don't appear for me (and potentially others :) in the last option.--cj | talk 15:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you can't see them - it's the option currently in the article - can you see it ok there? I can't really tell any difference regarding the backgrounds, so I'm not bothered. Viewing it on a screen with lower resolution, I can't really see any spacing differences between the first and third options, either, but I do prefer the larger flags in the 4th option. JPD (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What browser are you using CJ? sounds like it could be a problem with SVG support. I think the Eureka flag is the only one I created from scratch the others where modified from the Australian Flag. --Martyman-(talk) 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem in Firefox and IE.--cj | talk 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine in IE, Firefox in Classic and Monobook with XP for me. You seem to get losts of image errors could it be a problem on your end?--nixie 03:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It must be, although I haven't a clue what. :(--cj | talk 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For info: why is the flag at half mast today?

On Tuesday 17 January the Australian National Flag should be flown at half-mast all day , Australia-wide, from all buildings and establishments occupied by Australian Government departments and affiliated agencies. This is as a mark of mourning and respect for Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Amir of the State of Kuwait (His Highness Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad), whose death occurred on 15 January 2006.

FYI per email sent by Commonwealth Flag Network (subscription service) 16 January 2006. I thought it coould be an info item at the top of the page, without a section header so it doesn't get lost. Feel free to tremove if you disgree. I would propose to remove within 24 hours. --A Y Arktos 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I was wondering how good that service was, I have added a breif mention to the protocol section.--nixie 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Things to do before FAC

Mostly a list for me to go over, but as always, help and opinions are appreciated.--nixie 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there anything else that could be added to make the Flag Day section more substantial. Compare with other countries flag days?
  • Should info added to half-mast also be added to this article? Probably less relvant here, but could make an explicit mention of ANZAC and Rememberence Day.
  • Fair use rationales for 3 Defence Ensigns, Ausflag poster.
  • Standardise reference styles
  • Add pic of Parliament House flag pole? Biggest pole and flag in Australia, incorporates this trivia without adding it to the text.
  • Red links
  • Linkfix bot to dab links.
I thought it wouldnt' hurt to have the half-mast details. The flag pole pic would be good. JPD (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Debate section

Is there a better way to say that the two lobby groups are not aligned with politcal parties? They are clearly political, since they are lobbying regarding a political issue. I guess it's obvious what is meant, but I'm still not particlarly comfortable with it. JPD (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll find the Australian National Flag Association is a registered educational charity.

134.148.5.119 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

By my reckoning all three defence ensigns would be held under crown copyright - does this sound right?--nixie 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Star

I notice the article gives two different descriptions for the number of points on the commonwealth star. ie. that the star had 6 plus one for papua or 6 and one for all the territories. I assume it was originally for papua but has since been changed to represent all of Australia's territories. --Martyman-(talk) 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Your assumption is correct, the only territory in 1908 was Papua, NT and ACT were after 1910.--nixie 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense then. --Martyman-(talk) 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I was reading that in Ivor's (14yo boy) design the four large stars of the southern cross stood for the four moral virtues of justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude. Some sources seem to claim they mean that in our current flag. --Martyman-(talk) 02:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That'd make a good addition to the symbolism section.--nixie 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the Centenary flag section, because it seemed strange to discuss the number of points and then state that the flag was an Australian National Flag. I'm not sure that my version reads that well either, though. Is it enough to say "This flag was not a replica of the original flag but was a current Australian National Flag with a special headband, including a cardinal red stripe and the inscription..."? After all, the very first 1901 flag would have had different nubmers of points on some of the other stars, too. JPD (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on featured status

Congratulations to everyone on what has to be the easiest featured article candicy I have ever seen. --Martyman-(talk) 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work all with emphatic thanks to nixie, JPD and Martyman.--cj | talk 10:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree a very good article. Congrats to all concerned on it being a featured article. Good to see that a NPOV retained in what could easily have become polemic. Paddington62 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Well done to all contributors. One of the best recent FA's. Frelke 11:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

Why can't the page include a link to the Australian Flag Society www.flagsociety.org.au ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.1.19 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

  • The society is represented in external links--A Y Arktos\talk 11:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have removed it again, as it appears AYArtkos was thinking of the Australian National Flag Association when she replaced the link. The AFS is a splinter group of ANFA, and their link has been repeatedly removed as linkspam. I agree with Peta's description of it as a "peripheral organisation". There are already links to both Ausflag and ANFA, which is probably enough for an article which is after all about the flag, not the flag debate. JPD (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Growing Up" Poster

This poster is factually incorrect. The flag it uses for Ireland at British conquest was only adopted in 1801, well after the actual conquest. That poster should have that actual Irish flag of the time, like that harp flag. Xtra 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We didn't make the poster, its an Ausflag ad. We can's edit fair use images either.--nixie 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite a number of the flags on the poster seem to be bogus. The US flag was never in the form illustrated, the South African flag pre-1994 was not that illustrated, and the Irish flag (a red saltire on white or St Patrick's cross) was totally different from the one illustrated. Placing such an image on a Wiki page without comment seems to give it factual credibility which it simply does not have. Since the image is also copyrighted, I wonder whether this is should be here at all - I don't think anyone is suggesting the image should be tampered with, only removed. Excellent article, however, congratulations to all concerned. Chelseaboy 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the poster. Whether any of the flags on it are erroneous or not is entirely beside the point. The purpose of including the poster is to illustrate an Ausflag marketing campaign to promote flag change. --Centauri 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the strange comment about the poster being inaccurate because some of the flags shown were not in use "at the time of British conquest" because it's irrelevant. This is not the place to conduct a debate-by-stealth on the merits of Ausflag. --Centauri 03:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There might be minor reproduction errors but I don't think they are "bogus". Check the Grand Union flag at Flag of the United States#History, and The red ensign flag at List of South African flags#Historical flags. True, the UK flag wasn't the Irish flag - I think that one is intended to signify that it was part of the UK at one time and as such used the UK flag. -- Chuq 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the description to accurately summarise the poster's intent. Obviously it is intended to show that a group of former British colonies that at some stage or other used a flag containing the Union Jack no longer do. --Centauri 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever its intent, the fact is that it is erroneous, and that must be pointed out. Xtra 03:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing "erroneous" here apart from your attitude. You seem to be under the impression that unless the flag shown was the one in use at the time of "British conquest" it is "erroneous". This is utterly fallacious and misleading on your part. --Centauri 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we're all in this together! Let's be constructive! Let's assume good faith! Let's practise a little Wiki civility! Why be aggressive? Why not be friendly and work together without raising the temperature? The poster suggests to me that it shows the point when various nations "grow up", and suggests that, at that point, they changed their flags from the ones illustrated to the new ones illustrated. In that, the poster is wrong. So, if the consensus is that the poster must stay, for whatever reason (and I don't think many Wiki articles are illustrated by copyrighted material pushing non-neutral points of view, but just supposing....), then let's come up with a caption that ensures the reader is not misled as I was. Cheers! Chelseaboy 08:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, User:Petaholmes has solved the problem by finding a better poster. Thank you! Chelseaboy 09:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag of New Zealand

There should be a comment on the page about how the Flag of Australia is similar to (and often confused with) the Flag of New Zealand. This is one of the arguments given on both sides of the Tasman for changing the respective flags. I would have done so but couldn't work out where to put it on the lovely featured page. 130.195.86.36 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag of New Zealand Proposal

I agree we should add a section for this. But maybe it should be a different article. Anyone have any ideas? iThink4u (talk)

  • As a featured article, I think it should be mentioned that the two flags are similar, as it would only require one sentance.--HamedogTalk|@ 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur that this is till a missing item in the article and it is disappointing that it is not mentioned. Especially given that the New Zealand flag predated the Australian design apparently being introduced in 1869 according to the article on the flag of NZ. --Matilda talk 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Blue ensign

Quote: The blue colour has been interpreted to have a broader significance than a continuation of the Union Jack. It has been described as representing Australia as an island continent, as a symbol of the journey humans had to make to reach Australia, as the blue sky, and as a remnant of the Eureka Flag which also had a blue background. This is indicated as being gleaned from an external reference, so it is not entirely unfair to include it, but pllllease for the love of sanity! doesn't this just smack of waffle from someone trying to feign knowledge? There is a better theory of its roots on Blue Ensign. This is only one of the theories of its adaptation from the ensign of the Royal Navy's blue squadron, the other is that the blue squadron was chiefly responsible for the world beyond the Americas and Europe hence the reason colonies there used the blue ensign. Whatever the truth, it seems that the blue ensign was the origin of the design not the sky, sea nor the fluffy blue belly button fluff found on fluffy baby wallabies. Dainamo

It sounds like waffle, but not feigning knowledge. The article doesn't suggest that the sea or sky were the origins of the blue, but that the colour has been interpreted as also have that symbolism. It is quite normal for flags to have (waffly) meanings attached to their colours well after they were adopted, and the only possible problem I see with this statement is if it implies that this interpretation is widespread. Apart from that, "world beyong the Americas and Europe" theory doesn't sit well with the fact that the colonies also used the red ensign. (Also, baby wallabies are distinctly unfluffy.) JPD (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Definitely sounds like waffle. Just look at all the similar flags on the Gallery of flags based on British ensigns. Do all of those flags share the same significance? Ian Fieggen 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Need a better word choice than "defaced"

Currently, in the summary, is this phrase a few lines from the top "The flag is a defaced Blue Ensign:". "Defaced" has a strong negative connotation (at least in the US), which is probably not intended. Jon 14:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Defaced is the proper term, as the linked article clearly indicates. Raul654 15:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to a dictionary definition of "defaced" that does NOT have negative connotations? I think it is completely the wrong word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.33.84 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See my reply at Talk:Defacement (flag). JPD (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Suitable"

As an American, I have no particular horse in this debate, but I find it interesting. I happened to take note of this line:

an AGB-McNair poll in 1995 that asked, "If a suitable design for a new Australian flag were found, would you be likely to support or oppose changing the flag in time for the 2000 Olympics?", found support among 50% of respondents and opposition from 46%.

I wonder how much, if any, the inclusion of the word "suitable" affected this poll. Have there been polls that simply asked, "Do you support or oppose changing the flag?" If so, what were the results? Just curious. 71.156.15.166 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This 1995 poll would seem to suggest a fairly weak attachment to the existing Australian flag. A much more recent Newspoll which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Australia Day 2003 made these findings:

Q. Are you in favour or against changing the Australian flag to remove the Union Jack emblem?

Strongly in favour 19% Partly in favour 13%

Total in favour 32%

Partly aganist 16% Strongly against 41%

Total against 57%

Uncommitted 11%

You will note that the number of people 'strongly' opposed is more than the number of people in favour combined.

An awful lot has changed in Australia since 1995 and maybe that should be reflected in the article.


  • Is the article online? Could you please provide the URL and I will update the article.--Peta 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl

A minor question

This page states that Flags on Australian government buildings are to be flown on half mast "On the death of a member of a royal family." Which royal families does this apply to? Inge 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide design competition

The Australian government's 1901 Federal Flag design competition was advertised in foreign countries.

Shouldn't we describe it as a worldwide competition because it was open to non-Australians? One of the winning entries was submitted by a New Zealander.

We should put a box with words "the neutrality of this article is in dispute" at the top of the article for now.

It was definitely more than nationwide, but I'm not sure worldwide is accurate. The Review of Reviews competition was open to "all Australasia". At any rate, it's not an issue of "neutrality", as far as I can tell, and definitely not serious enough to dispute the whole article. JPD (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The official government competition was as worldwide as anything could be at the turn of the 20th century.

I quote from the third edition (2006) of the "Australian flags" booklet published by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet:

"In all, 32 823 entries were received from all over the world and from people of all ages and backgrounds, even an unamed state Governor."

Australian National Flag Day

The first time the 3 September was celebrated as "Flag Day" at any level in the community was at Hyde Park in 1985. Not 1984.

I was an eyewitness to those events.

I've contacted the Australian National Flag Association and they confirm their website is wrong and that the year 1985 is correct.
Premier 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Eureka flag

For a flag that in no way symbolises Australian nationality the Eureka flag is mentioned quite a few times in the article on the one that does. Too many really.

There is no way known the blue background to the Australian flag could be considered a remnant of the Eureka flag. Australians back in 1901 would not have been able to draw the Eureka flag if their lives depended on it. This flag of protest was not as well known in the relatively recent past as some of its more ardent modern day admirers would have you beleive.

How else can you explain the fact that the Eureka flag used in the 1949 film "Eureka Stockade" starring Chips Rafferty was, in technical terms, the fly-half of the Australian national flag? Yes, that's right, the Eureka flag shown was the Southern Cross from the Australian flag, not 5 white stars arrayed on a white cross!

I understand the producers of the movie went to Ballarat to do research for the project and everything. Apparently nobody who lived there in the late 1940s was able to provide an accurate descrpition of the famous Eureka flag looked like...

Federal Flag design competition

The competition that gave Australians their flag is the really unique thing about the symbol. Letting people express their view on what the distinguising flag of their country should look like was a quite unusual approach to take for the times. The judges report to the Prime Minister made it quite clear they saw their duty as selecting a design that was generally representative of all entries received which I though was pretty democratic.

Should we make more of the competition in the article? I understand there are phtographs that were taken of the competition entries that still survive to this day.

I can see people who want to look up information on the Australian flag being really interested in these images.

New Photo

There is another photo of the flag which offers a full view (unlike the current one):

Australian flag fullmast.jpg (current one)
Australianflagatnewport.JPG


The image is Image:Australianflagatnewport.JPG (3072×2304)

The only problem I can see is that it is too bright.

202.89.158.214 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (please edit this comment if you know how to make the photos go side-by-side, then delete the bracketed message)

The new one is way better. It should be used. - Ivan K

Date format in Wikipedia

To Ivan K.
No, commas do not appear on the page (not in Firefox 2.0 anyway). It has never been proper — not in Wikipedia anyway — to place commas between month and year (eg, 16 November 2005), only between day and year (eg, November 16, 2005). See WP:MOSDATENUM (date formats) for more on Wiki guidelines regarding date formats. And also see WP:MOSDATENUM (incorrect dates) for incorrect and correct ways of writing dates.
-- Regards Marco 03:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To the anon.

I actually use Firefox 2.0 and yes the commas do appear on the page. Also, the manual of style that you have linked to, shows that a comma should be used when writing dates in Wikipedia. So, because the commas do show up, and the manual of style says to have the commas there, I am going to have to revert you again. But also, since I don't actually really care whether or not they are there, I'm just gonna leave them alone if your revert me. - Ivan K

Well that's weird, that commas show up on yours and not on mine? Anyway you obviously did not read the MOS very well, because it does not say that at all. I've taken something from the MOS date format section, see below:

If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:

To create a date that is linked but not converted, use a piped link with alternate text, for example "[[17 February|17 February]]". This should only be done with good reason, such as in a direct quotation. In this case, it may be preferable not to link the date at all, as the link does not then help with readers’ date preferences.

Please show me where in MOS a comma should be used when writing dates in day-month-year format? -- Marco 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there really is something wrong with your browser or something, because where you have in red text the words "no comma used" there actually is a comma there. - King Ivan 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, just maybe it has something to do with personal preferences used by logged in users. I'm using an anon user account where we do not use personal preferences for displaying dates. Try logging out clearing your cache and seeing the page (WP:MOSNUM page) without logging in. Then go to WP:MOSDATENUM (date formats) and look at the raw text. And if you get the same answer as when logged in then maybe we should get someone else to explain why this occurs? -- Marco 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it really matters. I mean, it's just a few commas. So, I'm gonna not worry about it anymore. - King Ivan 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another link to WP:MOSDATENUM, which I think is a better example for date format styles wrt regions/countries. All the best. 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Flags in Schools

In 2004 Howard passed the "Schools Assistance (Learning Together through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004" requiring all schools to fly the Australian flag by 2008 (originally it was intended to make the kids salute the flag and sing the national anthem as well but this was dropped due to opposition and is now only encouraged). In my state at least there was massive public opposition to this because children should not have patriotism brainwashed into them. As a result most schools here ignore it. Should this get a mention? Views anyone? Wayne 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A short, neutral, description of requirements under the act would make a good addition to the protocol section. --Peta 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Five-pointed star

Why does the small star have only five points instead of seven? This should be added. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Basically, because it does. The original design had stars with 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 points, reflecting their relative brightness in the sky, but in London the four brighter stars were all made seven-pointed to make the flag easier to manufacture, as explained in the article. I don't think there is any reason why the five pointed star wasnt' changed, other than the fact that if it were made bigger, the cross wouldn't look as good. It is by far the least visible star in the constellation, and in the flag of New Zealand, it is left out completely. JPD (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A question about the information

Why does it say the flag should be at halfmast from 10:30 to 11:03—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.132.126 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 May 2007 )ACST).

I assume you mean the 3 minutes past part. At 11:00 a bugle is blown along with a minutes silence so the 3 minutes allows time for this before raising the flag. Wayne 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!211.30.137.103 07:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections to POV statements

There are two sentences that reflect a POV that I find offensive. The wording used is the POV grammar monarchists use in opposing a flag change.

"The Union Flag is commonly thought to reflect Australia's history as a collection of British colonies, although a more historic view sees its inclusion in the design as demonstrating loyalty to the British Empire."

Historically (and in Heraldry) the placing of another countries flag in the upper left quadrant (the vexillological honour point) indicates "subservience" not "loyalty".

"However, in the 1940s, successive governments encouraged private citizens to use the Australian Blue Ensign as the national emblem."

This sentence lacks context. Although Menzies encouraged the use of the blue ensign from 1941 the red ensign remained more popular and was the flag Australian forces used throughout WW2 which is not made clear in the artical. Menzies himself said that "red" was no longer a "respectable" colour. Given his views the change was political. Wayne 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Was the red ensign the flag Australian forces used during WW2 was it? Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_flag_debate
And here: http://www.australianflag.org.au/anzactradition.php
Wayne should know the Royal Australian Navy has used the blue Australian flag as a battle flag since the inception of the fleet in 1911. It was the flag HMAS Syndey flew during the clash with the Emden at the start of WW1. Banjo Patterson wrote a poem about it "Were all Australians now".
See here: http://www.australianflag.org.au/image.php?image=images/body/graphics/hmassydney.jpg&comment=Commemorating%20the%20Naval%20Victory%20of%20the%20HMAS%20Sydney%20over%20the%20German%20Light%20Cruiser%20Emden,%201914.
The internet is so powerful. Supporters of the Canadian red ensign might have been able to resist the imposition of the maple leaf flag if they had the advantages of instaneous forms of communications Australian monarchists have at their disposal today.
Long live the Australian flag and its Union Jack!
134.148.5.119 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly....write on my talk page not the user page. In WW1 we fought under the Union Jack but also used Ensigns, Red Ensigns used by the Army outnumbered Blue ensigns by 10 to 1. During WW2 the Blue Ensign was rarely seen as it was restricted to the Navy, government buildings and schools. Often you will find that photos of flags from WW2 have the Red Ensign recoloured blue by artists (In black and white photos red and blue look the same). The Changi flag was red, Mawsons flag at the South Pole was red and when Queen Elizabeth visited Australia in 1954 the crowd waved Red Ensigns not blue. Menzies changed the flag from red to blue right in the middle of his anti communist campaign and he did it without a referendum as it would have failed as the red was more popular with the public. The Red Ensign was the standard national flag from 1901 until 1954. The Red Ensign is the flag our troops fought under in World Wars 1 and 2. If we can't get rid of the demeaning Jack then we should use the Red Ensign purely on historical grounds. Wayne (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the flag that Australia has grown up under and the flag that has been associated with all of her many achievements on the international scene. Its a time honoured symbol of Australia.

Menzies didn't change the colour of the flag. Elizabeth Kwan is one of the most rabid flag changers out there and not even she subscribed that that view in her monumental work "Flag and Nation".

Your on your own wayne.

134.148.5.119 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While we obviously wish to make this article as NPOV and accurate as possible, I would suggest there is something wrong if errors in the history of the flag are seen as "offensive", rather than simply inaccurate. This article has been worked on with much discussion and input from people of many political viewpoints, and is generally more NPOV that your comments, which reflect old Ausflag arguments rather than serious recent research. We try to present the verifiable facts, whether or not they are usually accompanied by political arguments, leaving the connotations out. We certainly try to avoid assuming that flag change opponents are monarchists. There are quite a few republicans who support the current flag. (It seems less likely that there are monarchists calling for a new flag, but I wouldn't rule it out.)
Addressing your second point first, there definitely is a lot more context that could be given to the move towards the blue ensign in the 1940s, but if we were to add more it could not be as simplistic as your description above. Elizabeth Kwan's book Flag and Nation, which is probably the best work on the issue of the two ensigns, and is definitely not written in support of the current flag, devotes a whole chapter to the events from 1940-1953, and does not give much credit to the "blue ensign as politically motivated anti-communism" speculation, saying the steps towards the blue ensign were convenient for Menzies in his campaign against communists, but suggesting it was the natural consequence of the ideal of a single national flag.
Support for the blue flag seems to have ben most apparent in the Victorian state government during the and the staff of the prime minister's department. The department suggesting making the blue ensign the national flag in 1939. In 1940, the department said the blue version was "really the national flag of Australia" and should be flown by town halls at leaast. The Menzies government's press release was followed by a similar statement from Chifley in 1947. It was the Chifley government that commissioned a committee that recommended the blue ensign be proclaimed the national flag (although did suggest that an entirely new flag might be more appropriate), and started the distribution of blue ensigns to schools. I think the sentence you quote does a good job of summarising this history, with both Labor and non-labor parties advocating the blue ensign. It would be wrong to downplay the role of the red ensign before 1953, but the issue is not at all simple. Both flags were used by Australian forces, and the first government press release did not receive much coverage, leading an MP to complain in 1947 that people were flyign the red ensign out of ignorance. It might be a good idea to say that the use of the red flag did continue in that decade.
As for the canton, in heraldry it is indeed the honour point and an indicator of subservience. The notion of honour point does seem to have carried on into vexillology, but the use of national flag cantons in flags appears to have begun with the British ensigns, and it is not clear that the idea of subservience was explicitly part of their design. It would be fair to say that all uses of these cantons communicated some sense of being under the authority of the king represented by the flag in the canton, but in this context it is hard to see a significant difference between loyalty to the empire and subservience to the monarch. (It is hard to see the difference even in the original heraldic context.) Even if there is a difference, speaking of loyalty rather than subservience is more positive, but surely the intended signficance was positive and that sentences describes the historical (i.e. intended) symbolism. There is a place for arguing that the symbolism is other than intended, and even whether the intended symbolism is appropriate, but not before giving the positive view, and an encyclopedia is not the best place for that argument. JPD (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thx for the detailed reply. Sorry for sounding POV but it does upset me to see what looks like monarchist arguements in an encylopedia lol. The colour I have no preference for (I actually dislike red) but it is POV to play down the significance (or popularity) of the red ensign. My main complaint however is the Union flag in it. We are no longer a colony so it has no place anymore and seems (to me) to be POV to say loyalty. I'll go with the majority on what it should say but just put in my 2 cents to see if others felt an edit was needed. Wayne 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there is no doubt that it was originally intended to display loyalty and symbolise being part of the Empire - saying this is not arguing that we should keep the flag. Whether we call it loyalty or subservience, it should be obvious that if we are no longer a colony, this symbolism is no longer appropriate. The question of whether this means we should change the flag, or just think of it in a different way as representing our history, is a matter of opinion that should really not be dealt with in this article outside the flag debate section. The article probably could place more emphasis on the use of the red ensign and the Union Flag itself. How about:
By traditional British understanding, the Blue Ensign would be reserved for Commonwealth Government use, with State and local governments, private organisations and individuals all using the Red Ensign. However, in the 1940s, successive governments allowed and encouraged private citizens to use the Australian Blue Ensign as the national emblem. This was not widely reported, and many still flew the Red Ensign, while the Union Flag remained the flag of choise in many situations that called for a national flag.[10] In 1951,... JPD (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't really see how the infobox is any more helpful than the lead section is by itself. But even if it is a helpful addition, is it really a good idea to include the other ensigns? This article is clearly written to be about the blue flag now called the "Australian National Flag", with the red and white ensigns covered in articles of their own. JPD (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just following what was done over at Flag of the United Kingdom - where the ensigns also have entries of their own - and various other flag articles. I think the purpose of having the ensigns at the start in this manner is for the benefit of those who do not know much about the flag, which makes sense, and for the benefit of vexillologists who want easy access to the various official versions. Of course Australians know the difference between the ensigns, but others may not. Also, having this information and the other ensigns is more informative than what was previously there (the image of the national flag followed by a photo it). - 52 Pickup 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Both here and at Flag of the United Kingdom, I am slightly bothered that such a (long) infobox gives the wrong impression that the article is about all the flags shown. (The UK case is slightly different, as it is not the main article about the flag itself, but that is another issue.) It may indeed be better to have consistency in displaying all the national flags on one page, but surely that would mean writing the article differently, as at Flag of Germany? As for more informative, apart from the issue of extra ensigns, the question is whether we want an infobox duplicating the information to its left, or a picture to complement it. JPD (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an infobox is at all required, and this particular design is far too obtrusive. Not every article requires an infobox.--cj | talk 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. But you can see that many flag articles contain a long column of thumbnail images (eg. Flag of Saudi Arabia) where this template could bring these images together in a more standard way. Some sort of consistency (not total uniformity, of course) would be good, and I'm currently trying out some different ideas (the German article is my testing bed ATM), so if you have any thoughts on the matter I'd be interested to hear them. I've removed the "design" information, which is explained perfectly well in the intro, so the box is now more complimentary than duplicative. Who knows, perhaps this template is not suitable for this particular entry - there was no harm in giving it a try - but many other articles use it, even though I think the template could do with a bit of work. Remove it if you like, it doesn't bother me. - 52 Pickup 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I am not the only one who doesn't think this article needs an infobox, and there is no strong feeling for it, I have removed it. JPD (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of reviews

Some of the 32,000 entries to the government competition were actually submitted to another earlier competition held by a Melbourne journal the Review of Reviews.

The article makes no mention of the Review of Reviews.

124.184.175.153 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use question

Since Image:Ausflag identity.gif has valid fair use criteria for its inclusion in this article, surely it should also be valid to use it in the Australian flag debate article? Even more valid than this article, I'd say. So, any objections to modifying the fair use criteria so it suits both articles? - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. JPD (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Australia/Archive_2&oldid=221369778"