Talk:List of Australian flags

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon List of Australian flags is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Australia (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon List of Australian flags is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.



What about the National Colonial flag of Australia?

Aboriginal flag[edit]

The Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted and thus WP can only use it under the provisions of fair use. Fair use would not extend to this article, so the image should be removed. See Image talk:Australian aboriginal flag.png for a discussion about this. --pfctdayelise 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Civil Air Ensign[edit]

Isn't the Civil Air Ensign image lifted from FOTW? Becuase if it indeed is a FOTW image it needs {{FOTWpic}}, which is more specific and restrictive than the {{PD-flag}} (general flag tag) it has atm. FYI I've seen FOTW's listing at Wikipedia:Free or semi-free non-Public-Domain information resources. PS. I will make a PD Australian Civil Air Ensign if someone gives me the specifications. Greentubing 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a FOTW tag. However the image is still PD regardless of its source. Astrotrain 11:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The FOTW tag adds restrictions, namely that that particular rendition is copyright, regardless of the copyright status of the design. I will add the tag and proper attrbutions. Greentubing 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

City flags[edit]

Should more city flags be added? I know that Brisbane has one, and I'd be surprise if the other capitals and major cities didn't. I don't know a source other than FOTW for them in electronic format, though. Xt828 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Autriservice.gif[edit]

The image Image:Autriservice.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Customs flag[edit]

Probably a good idea to have it in the list, but surely it cannot be classified as a Civil Ensign? JPD (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Greater Melbourne[edit]

File:Flag of greater Melbourne.PNG was nominated for deletion on Commons a long time ago. Do we have any verification for who created/use this? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Herald Federal Flag)[edit]

The flag is a former ARE??? as far as im aware it was the winning design for the national flag conducted by a newspaper in 1901! Nford24 (Talk) 07:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Australian Flag with Aboriginal Flag.svg[edit]

This has apparently been separately spontaneously proposed by various people at various times, but the flag experts don't like it, and the designer of the Aboriginal Flag claims it would be copyright infringement... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it really possible to copyright something that simple? Regardless, it's too simple for US copyright so I see no reason to remove it or worry about it particularly. NikNaks talk - gallery 22:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not copyrightable under United States copyright law, but the basic Aboriginal Flag is copyrightable under Australian law. I was just providing some context, since there are blanks in its entry on the article page -- I don't think it has a single proposer, but various people have come up with the idea independently... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alternative flags[edit]

Look like proposed flags list is more then actual flags of Australia. It bit confusing first i thought "wow how many flag Australia has, but after checking out the page look like proposed alternative flags list is more then actual flags LOL --Muzi (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, it does confuse the issue. Propose we move the proposed flags to their own page or the Flag Debate page.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. They aren't official flags so they shouldn't really be taking up so much space here. NikNaks talk - gallery 13:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have created the new article here. Please remove the majority of the flags in the section on this page as appropriate - I imagine we'll want to keep some of the more notable ones like the more popular Ausflag ones. NikNaks talk - gallery 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Omitted flags[edit]

Several flags have been blanked out from the article, namely:

Flag Description
File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg Torres Strait Islander Flag
File:Autriservice.gif Australian Defence Force Ensign
File:ASeaCadetsFlag.png Australian Navy Cadets Ensign
File:Boxingkangaroo.svg Boxing kangaroo

Why is this so? The comment for the Torres Strait Islander Flag claims it "can't be used in this list per WP:NFLISTS". That guideline states:

In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists:

  1. Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly (as the "extent" of use is determined by the number and resolution of non-free images, and not the number of files.)
  2. Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements.
  3. An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed.
  4. If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use.
  5. For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media.
  6. Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.

I'm not convinced that this applies to omit flags from an article whose sole purpose is as a list of flags, i.e., where the images are integral to conveying and understanding the content. The description "A five-pointed star and traditional headdress in white, on a blue, green and black background" is a poor substitute for showing the actual flag, but any other image would not represent the actual flag accurately. The guidelines at MOS:FLAG, which deal with the use of flag icons, is also irrelevant to the use of flags as the subject of an article. No rationale has been given to justify excluding the above flags but showing all of the others in the article. Flags are surely exempt from copyright for free use in Wikipedia articles about flags; indeed the above flags are all included on the separate linked articles and there are many other articles containing galleries of flags.

Is there any valid reason why these flags shouldn't be included in this article? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is debatable whether the article may or may not show non-free flags, but showing them on this talk page is clearly inappropriate per WP:NFCC#9. I've replaced them with links to the files. SiBr4 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (WP:NFCCP):

Other non-free contentโ€”including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content licenseโ€”may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

  1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
No other image would serve the purpose of illustrating these flags/ensigns.
  1. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.

These uses are unlikely to replace the original role of the original images and are all provided in small resolution unsuitable for commercial exploitation.
  1. Minimal usage:
    1. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
    2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
Each flag/ensign is to be included only once and no other versions would convey the equivalent significant information. No portion of the original works would suffice to accurately represent the work. Low resolution is used in each case.
  1. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

These are either widely published and/or derivatives created by Wikipedians.
  1. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

They are encyclopedic and serve the specific purpose of illustrating the content they refer to.
  1. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

The images meet this policy (otherwise they would have been deleted).
  1. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

These images are already used on other articles.
  1. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
These flags/ensigns are significant in the context of an article listing the flags of Australia (indeed, they are already listed) and their omission is detrimental in accurately representing and understanding the visualisation of each flag/ensign.
  1. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

The article is in article namespace.
  1. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
    2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.[1] The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.
The image description pages have the required information, including non-free use rationales specific to this article.
Therefore, the images should be included. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 08:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
There was a review of WP:NFCC about this page, at WP:NFRCWP:NFCR which determined that the files should not be in this article. Do not re-add them. Werieth (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth:
  1. Where is this review located? Note your comment included a redlink.
  2. Your reversion also undid other changes to image sizes and descriptions, without explanation. What was the reason for this reversion, or was this unintentional? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 12:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ive fixed the link swapped the CR around. Not sure which archive the discussion is in, but the outcome was that the files are unacceptable. User:Expatkiwi was actually blocked because they refused to abide by WP:NFC. If you take a look I made a follow up edit that re-added those changes. It was a matter of me not seeing that edit. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth: Thanks. The only reference I found to this article was at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 23#Submissions for List of Australian flags and List of New Zealand flags where you opposed Expatkiwi's request on the basis of WP:NFLIST/WP:NFLISTS, a guideline which I have expressly discussed above specifically in relation to lists of flags. I have also discussed the various criteria of WP:NFCCP point by point to explain why the images should be included in this specific case. Rather than simply citing the guidelines, could you please explain your reversions by reference to the specific text that you think applies in this case? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically each of these flags has its own article, and thus we can point readers to that article instead of displaying it on this one, and as a list no single flag is critical, in fact you could just link to all the relevant articles. (Foundations based off WP:NFCC#1,3,8). In this case a wiki link to the primary article can replace the file, #3 we want to keep usage of non-free media minimal thus include in only in the article about the subject, and lists lack the critical commentary necessary to establish #8. Suggestion about above, remove the wall of text and just boil it down to your actual points. Re-including a full policy page in a discussion just makes your points harder to figure out. Werieth (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You raised WP:NFCC #1, 3 and 8, but I have addressed each of these individually above: #1 "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (i.e., showing the flag being mentioned); #3 each flag/ensign is only included once and no other version would convey the equivalent significant information; #8 the inclusion of each flag/ensign would increase readers' understanding because the visuals aid the reader to recognise the flag/ensign being discussed. In response to your specific comments:
  • "In this case a wiki link to the primary article can replace the file..." Merely providing a link to an article that includes the flag/ensign image is not nearly as helpful to the reader as providing the image in this article, the express purpose of which is as a list of flags/ensigns. The images aid immediate recognition and visual comparison between the various flags listed on the same page without having to click through to multiple articles.
  • "#3 we want to keep usage of non-free media minimal thus include in only in the article about the subject..." I read #3a ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information") as meaning that multiple images should not be used when one will do (e.g., Seinfeld does not need multiple photos of Elaine Benes), so a list of flags can have one of each flag being referenced.
  • "lists lack the critical commentary necessary to establish #8." Note that #8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding") does not refer to any requirement for "critical commentary".
I included the "wall of text" above so that I could address each point one by one, since it was not clear which points (if any) might be contested and I thought that would be the clearest way to convey the rationale in this case. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜

As I am not convinced by the above, I have raised this at Non-free content review. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale.