Talk:List of flags of the United States
 | Heraldry and vexillology List‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Should include the "Appeal to Heaven" pine tree flag -- that was very important in the 1770's... AnonMoos 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. BTW, the flag is more known as 'Washington's Cruisers flag'. - Thanks, Hoshie |
09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor discrepancies
Image Image:Naval_Jack_of_the_United_States.svg is shown twice on the page, and the "City Flags" section speaks of eight flags, but only shows seven... AnonMoos 19:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's appropriate to list the (so-called) First Navy Jack under both "Flags with similar designs" and "Military flags"; would you disagree? As for the missing city flag, there was apparently a copyright issue with the St. Louis flag image and someone deleted it without fixing the text; I've restored the gallery entry using a different image. --ScottMainwaring 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it from "Flags with similar designs", since it was kind of redundant (and it doesn't even have a canton, like almost all the others in that subsection do). AnonMoos 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Coast guard flag.gif
Image:Coast guard flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Coast guard flag.gif
Image:Coast guard flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
invisible images
i'm wondering why several flags in the gallery are not being displayed. there's a placeholder, and it clicks-through with to a visible image, but it doesn't show in the article. --emerson7 | Talk 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
False Information
You have completely wrong information under "civil flag" that's not even a picture of the civil flag, I have one my great granpa got after WW-I. and that's not it, not close to being it, and THEN your article claims that the civil flag isn't even legitimate. It's BS like this that gives wikipedia a bad name. THEN when searching for information I find a dead link to an article on the civil flag that used to be up here, but was deleted. Go figure. -- 23:57, 13 October 2007) 216.255.15.9
- Maybe you could tell us what precisely you think the civil flag of the U.S. is (as opposed to the flag flown by ordinary citizens on land, and by non-governmental ships at sea -- the ordinary meaning of "civil" flags, but in the the case of the U.S. both identical with the national flag; and as opposed to the mutant version of the U.S. customs flag which is used to illustrate a fringe conspiracy theory on the article page). 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)
On oren neu dag's flags
I'm not sure we should have 2 flags that were just made by a user when they have no historical basis whatsoever. He just.. made them. On the computer. I mean, they're very nice, but I'm not sure we should have it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- They do not belong, but then again, none of the ones in that section belong here. Someone should try creating a seperate page named. "Fictional Flags of the U.S.A." for thoseAladdin Zane 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least with the other flags there's a connection in some form to something else that could be on Wikipedia. I don't think we should allow flags somebody just alternatively makes. I'm thinking of deleting them right now, in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the others are just as ficticious too, they are not real flags.Aladdin Zane 06:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least with the other flags there's a connection in some form to something else that could be on Wikipedia. I don't think we should allow flags somebody just alternatively makes. I'm thinking of deleting them right now, in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposed, supposed, or fictional designs
Why is this section here? As they are not flags of the U.S.A. they are all fictional flags with no basis for being here. If someone else doesn't take them off. I will be doing it soon.Aladdin Zane 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The recently added Oren Neu Dag image was apparently personal to him, and so somewhat irrelevant, but a number of the other images in that section have various degrees of interest for various reasons (one being a design produced by a branch of the U.S. government as a possible design for a 51-star flag), so deleting them all en masse isn't all that helpful. It would be better to discuss individual reasons for why individual images should be ommitted... AnonMoos 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about actual flags of the U.S. not proposed flags, feel free to create a seperate page of ficticious flags of the world. To link back to here.Aladdin Zane 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- To quote from the introduction to the page, "This is a list of flags used in or otherwise associated with the United States." Fictional, proposed, and supposed flags of the U.S. may not be in actual use, but they are nonetheless associated with the U.S. and thus on-topic, no? --ScottMainwaring 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- No they aren't associated with the U.S. They are associated with television shows, and associated with proposed movements. And to try and say they are misrepresents the whole page in itself. As wiki is an encyclopedia. And not an Editorial on proposed flags of movements, that aren't likely to happen or fictional TV shows.Aladdin Zane 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. Until and unless you give give SPECIFIC reasons for removing EACH individual image in particular -- instead of just indiscriminately deleting all of them en-masse promiscuously -- then I consider that you're not acting in a cooperative and constructive manner to collaboratively improve the content of this article. AnonMoos 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- No they aren't associated with the U.S. They are associated with television shows, and associated with proposed movements. And to try and say they are misrepresents the whole page in itself. As wiki is an encyclopedia. And not an Editorial on proposed flags of movements, that aren't likely to happen or fictional TV shows.Aladdin Zane 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- To quote from the introduction to the page, "This is a list of flags used in or otherwise associated with the United States." Fictional, proposed, and supposed flags of the U.S. may not be in actual use, but they are nonetheless associated with the U.S. and thus on-topic, no? --ScottMainwaring 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about actual flags of the U.S. not proposed flags, feel free to create a seperate page of ficticious flags of the world. To link back to here.Aladdin Zane 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason given covers all of them. They are NOT real flags, nor are they associated to the U.S. in any way. They are proposed flags for movements, that will in all probaility never come true. And fictional flags on fictional tv show. They in no way should be included in an encyclopedic article. As this is an encyclopedia. I will remove them again. You need to give and actual basis for these FAKE flags being on this page.Aladdin Zane 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You may think it adequately "covers all of them", but others disagree, and if you want to replace unconstructive edit-warring with substantive factual discussion, then you should give a specific particular reason for each particular specific image. 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is you that need to provide substantive factual reasons for each individual one to be on the page. Along with valid citations. None of which have been provided. And will be deleted until provided.Aladdin Zane 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aladdin Zane, would you please hold off further deletions until a consensus is reached? To try to respond to your points: (a) If by saying these flags aren't "real" you mean they have no official status, and likely never will, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. There is no reason that notable unofficial flags should not be covered by an encyclopedia, however. (b) You say that these flags are not "associated with the U.S. in any way". Why do you think this? It would seem on the face of it that in each case, the designer of the (proposed/supposed/fictional) flag is rather explicitly intending that a viewer would associate the flag with the U.S. national flag. I.e., you persist in claiming these flags are off-topic for this page by not being "U.S." associated, but don't explain why you make this counter-intuitive claim. (c) If it's really notability (or lack thereof) that is bothering you, then please discuss this on a case by case basis. Though my own opinion is that all of these flags is notable enough to justify the rather limited space (in absolute or fractional terms) they take up in this list of flags. --ScottMainwaring 05:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- None of the are ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way and should stay removed, until they are proven to be ASSOCIATED with the U.S. with valid citations and (wiki itself is not a valid citation) If you can provide this info feel free top add them back.Aladdin Zane 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way"? For example, are you claiming that there is no intended association between the 51-star proposal by the US Army and the current US National Flag? I am trying to start a good-faith discussion with you, but the imperial tone of your proclamations here is not helping me understand your reasoning, Aladdin Zane. --ScottMainwaring 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- What do I mean by ASSOCIATED? "Flags of the United States---This is a list of flags used in or otherwise associated with the United States." Those flags are not ASSOCIATED with the U.S. they are associated with movements.Aladdin Zane 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way"? For example, are you claiming that there is no intended association between the 51-star proposal by the US Army and the current US National Flag? I am trying to start a good-faith discussion with you, but the imperial tone of your proclamations here is not helping me understand your reasoning, Aladdin Zane. --ScottMainwaring 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- None of the are ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way and should stay removed, until they are proven to be ASSOCIATED with the U.S. with valid citations and (wiki itself is not a valid citation) If you can provide this info feel free top add them back.Aladdin Zane 13:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aladdin Zane, would you please hold off further deletions until a consensus is reached? To try to respond to your points: (a) If by saying these flags aren't "real" you mean they have no official status, and likely never will, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. There is no reason that notable unofficial flags should not be covered by an encyclopedia, however. (b) You say that these flags are not "associated with the U.S. in any way". Why do you think this? It would seem on the face of it that in each case, the designer of the (proposed/supposed/fictional) flag is rather explicitly intending that a viewer would associate the flag with the U.S. national flag. I.e., you persist in claiming these flags are off-topic for this page by not being "U.S." associated, but don't explain why you make this counter-intuitive claim. (c) If it's really notability (or lack thereof) that is bothering you, then please discuss this on a case by case basis. Though my own opinion is that all of these flags is notable enough to justify the rather limited space (in absolute or fractional terms) they take up in this list of flags. --ScottMainwaring 05:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is you that need to provide substantive factual reasons for each individual one to be on the page. Along with valid citations. None of which have been provided. And will be deleted until provided.Aladdin Zane 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- If Image:US_flag_51_stars.svg is used in Flag_of_the_United_States#Future_of_the_flag, why can't it also be used in this article? AnonMoos 10:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- A citation wasn't used for it there either, and it should be removed, thanks for telling me.(wiki itself is not a valid citation) I will take care of it. Also Puerto Rico is not the 51st state, because it declined becoming one, so that imaginary flag is pointless.Aladdin Zane 13:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could give meaningful specific explanations for your preferred state of an article, instead of just being apparently motivated by some kind of delete-mania. The probability that Puerto Rico will become a state in the next 5-10 years is low, but nevertheless, if an agency of the U.S. government has made preparations for the possibility of a future 51-star flag, then there's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia can't include this. See http://flagspot.net/flags/us51star.html etc. AnonMoos 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- You just proved my point even more. It is NOT a flag, and not likely to ever be one. This is an encyclopedia, and wiki isNOT a Crystal Ball. Also the site you provided is not a valid citationAladdin Zane 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that site is a valid citation - it's a mirror of Flags of the World. And that 51 star flag really does exist, it just has no official status other than being the Army's official proposal. I don't understand why you say it is "NOT a flag". --ScottMainwaring 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is just a proposal of what the flag should look like if Puerto Rico ever becomes a state. In fact both of those flags are proposals of what each group THINKS, the flag should be changed too. If Puerto Rico ever becomes a state, there is NO guarantee the U.S. would use either of those proposals. So basically they represent NOTHING, and also they are NOT ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way, They are ASSOCIATED with movements. Why am I bringing up the word associated? Because of the main purpose of the wiki page which clearly states. "Flags of the United States--This is a list of flags used in or otherwise associated with the United States"Aladdin Zane 11:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, the 51-star flag design was not based on the practical politics of Puerto Rico. It was a contingency plan for the addition of a 51st state, no matter what that state might be (and it appears from FOTW that in fact designs with 51 through 56 stars were drawn up). Furthermore, CAPITALIZING words whose intended meaning in the context of this discussion seems rather obscure to other people does not do anything by itself to clarify their meaning. AnonMoos 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- You just said it yourself "It was a contingency plan for the addition of a 51st state"Aladdin Zane 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and there's no valid reason seen so far as to why such a contingency plan can't be mentioned in this article. It has a much stronger official connection to the U.S. government than other flags whose presence in the article you haven't objected to, such as Image:Adbusters_Flag.png and Image:Uspeaceflag.png... AnonMoos 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- You just said it yourself "It was a contingency plan for the addition of a 51st state"Aladdin Zane 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, the 51-star flag design was not based on the practical politics of Puerto Rico. It was a contingency plan for the addition of a 51st state, no matter what that state might be (and it appears from FOTW that in fact designs with 51 through 56 stars were drawn up). Furthermore, CAPITALIZING words whose intended meaning in the context of this discussion seems rather obscure to other people does not do anything by itself to clarify their meaning. AnonMoos 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is just a proposal of what the flag should look like if Puerto Rico ever becomes a state. In fact both of those flags are proposals of what each group THINKS, the flag should be changed too. If Puerto Rico ever becomes a state, there is NO guarantee the U.S. would use either of those proposals. So basically they represent NOTHING, and also they are NOT ASSOCIATED with the U.S. in any way, They are ASSOCIATED with movements. Why am I bringing up the word associated? Because of the main purpose of the wiki page which clearly states. "Flags of the United States--This is a list of flags used in or otherwise associated with the United States"Aladdin Zane 11:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that site is a valid citation - it's a mirror of Flags of the World. And that 51 star flag really does exist, it just has no official status other than being the Army's official proposal. I don't understand why you say it is "NOT a flag". --ScottMainwaring 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- You just proved my point even more. It is NOT a flag, and not likely to ever be one. This is an encyclopedia, and wiki isNOT a Crystal Ball. Also the site you provided is not a valid citationAladdin Zane 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could give meaningful specific explanations for your preferred state of an article, instead of just being apparently motivated by some kind of delete-mania. The probability that Puerto Rico will become a state in the next 5-10 years is low, but nevertheless, if an agency of the U.S. government has made preparations for the possibility of a future 51-star flag, then there's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia can't include this. See http://flagspot.net/flags/us51star.html etc. AnonMoos 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- A citation wasn't used for it there either, and it should be removed, thanks for telling me.(wiki itself is not a valid citation) I will take care of it. Also Puerto Rico is not the 51st state, because it declined becoming one, so that imaginary flag is pointless.Aladdin Zane 13:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dude -- 1) That site references a National Geographic article as its source. 2) Your naive metaphysics concerning things which allegedly "exist" and do not "exist" is simply not helpful for the purposes of this discussion. It would be far more constructive to give a reasoned argument for why you want things to be a particular way, rather than making flat bald assertions that something is "NOT A FLAG" (whatever that's supposed to mean). AnonMoos 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- So you're telling me you do NOT know what a flag is?Aladdin Zane 11:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm telling you that your "folk existentialism" is not adding anything positive to the discussion of how to improve the article page. AnonMoos 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- So you're telling me you do NOT know what a flag is?Aladdin Zane 11:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dude -- 1) That site references a National Geographic article as its source. 2) Your naive metaphysics concerning things which allegedly "exist" and do not "exist" is simply not helpful for the purposes of this discussion. It would be far more constructive to give a reasoned argument for why you want things to be a particular way, rather than making flat bald assertions that something is "NOT A FLAG" (whatever that's supposed to mean). AnonMoos 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
FAKE flags still need VALID citations, (and wiki is not a valid citation) The supposed United States 51-star flag (proposed by U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry) had no valid citation, and even if you went to the wiki page provided, it also had no citation for this flag, or even a picture). The supposed United States 51-star flag (proposed by New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico) supposed flag, that had no valid citation, even if you went to the wiki page, it was linked to there was no image of the flag provided with circle of stars, or citations on the page linking to one.) The supposed United States Civil Flag (supposed by some groups to be the legitimate flag) supposed flag from a fictional movie, has no assciation to the U.S , and no valid citations proving it did. The supposed Flag of a post-atomic United States (fictional, from the Jericho episode "Why We Fight") supposed flag from a fictional tv show, has no assocition to the U.S), and no valid citation proving it did. The supposed Flag of United States of Earth (fictional, from Futurama) supposed flag from a fictional tv show, as it has no assocition to the U.S), and no valid citation proving it did. Provide valid citations with pic of the flag and proof of association to the U.S. and I will not delete them. Do the work to back up your claims and they stay. If you can't, they stay of the page til you can. And remember sites of original research are not allowed as valid citaionsAladdin Zane 12:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- 1) None of the flags on this page has "citations" in the sense you're requesting. The only citations on the article page are to flag rankings in a survey (not to individual flags).
- 2) Your "explanation" for your deletion action repeats pretty much the same text for each removed flag (making it relatively hard to read), and this repetitious text also heavily relies on the word "association" -- a word which is apparently deeply personally meaningful for you, but which has been shown in the context of this discussion not to be able to intelligbly convey your intended meaning to other people. AnonMoos 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, the flags that are supposed to be here, you can find citations for their flags on their state or county pages. The word "association" is a key word in the heading of this article. As has been stated. If you find one without one, It should be deleted until one can be found Aladdin Zane 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- 2) Your "explanation" for your deletion action repeats pretty much the same text for each removed flag (making it relatively hard to read), and this repetitious text also heavily relies on the word "association" -- a word which is apparently deeply personally meaningful for you, but which has been shown in the context of this discussion not to be able to intelligbly convey your intended meaning to other people. AnonMoos 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)