Talk:Flag

National Flags

This section states: The flag of the Netherlands is the oldest tricolour. Its three colours of red, white and blue go back to Charlemagne's time, the 9th century. The coastal region of what today is the Netherlands was then known for its cloth in these colours. The flag of the Netherlands is the oldest tricolour in continuous use, but tricolour flags are a relative recent invention, and it is highly doubtful made in the 9th century. I wonder what is the source of such claim.

Propose deletion within 14 days

I am proposing to delete the section on Similar Flags in its current format if noone offers a thorough defence as to why it does not deserve to be called Original Research. It firstly serves no analytical purpose and is potentially offensive to whichever nations are being bundled together. Secondly it is not based on any sources. None are cited. There is not verifiable research. The very idea to begin with is flawed because it apparently was born on Wikipedia. It exists in the mind of the person who decided each set. I could dispute each and every one by simply choosing a different set of characteristics to declare salient. I could say the Flag of Singapore ought instead to be grouped with those of Turkey and Tunisia because of red and white crescent and stars. So how do we judge that? Which are the defining characteristics, who says, and why? Why bother in the first place? Is this a major part of State Diplomacy? Does the UN arrange the Flags in this way? Indeed, why not start articles comparing anything and everything according to how any editor might choose on a whim, and say, "Similar books" and then categorize them according to the picture on the front cover of any arbitrary edition, and say, both these books have a picture of a man, or including the color orange, or does not feature a mosque, therefore is similar ?

So within 14 days if there is no reason it is not Original Research, and I mean, unless we get a verifiable and reliable source, I will delete. Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG. I've just seen the section you mean. Well, all I can say is your patience and measured approach are to be applauded. The section is pointless WP:OR, adds nothing to the article, and deserves to go sooner rather than later. TFOWR 17:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. In fact, I'm almost glad it is there for now because finally I can see others who recognize it as almost a textbook example of what constitutes WP:OR. But let's see could be someone does located some university department somewhere that has justified some scheme to compare Flags outside the UN HQ in NY for the purposes of optimal ease on the human eye when scanning through them.Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No Original Research

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." [U]npublished...speculation[]and ideas"80.40.144.68 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's precisely the unpublished speculation and ideas that worries me the most here; it is pure speculation and there is neither solid theory or justification underpinning each of these groupings, nor any point to it to begin with. Personally according to my taste I would have all the flags that feature th Star of David i.e. Morroco, State of Israel, Ethiopia, and Somalia. At least then it's not just any star but a particular star. But even then, what's the point; it would piss of the Ethiopians and the Somalis who have been at war. They all have their own reasons for adopting that Star anyway. On the other hand someone else would keep Somalia and Israel in the same group because they're both blue and white but send Ethiopia over to the flags that have the African tricolor.

Anyway, enough ranting :P Eugene-elgato (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of flags by design is on the Wikimedia Commons. This has some structure to it and is featured as the link on similar flags on the flag template. This should be referred to if anyone wants to keep anything under that section.Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of them now. I forgot to add an Edit Summary when I did it. No offence to all the editors before me who make the effort and amend more sets of similar flags; but I did warn precisely two weeks ago and have had the backing of two editors and no-one came to the defence of similar flags as not Original Research. As can be seen in the edit history for the article there are spurious reasons like "they're not very similar" even though evidently someone did think them dimilar at one stage. The link to the gallery has got some more objective classifications. Apart from anything else though, the similar flags section was making the Article kind of longEugene-elgato (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No USA flag?

Why isn't there a US flag, or EU flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to include every flag. We don't have city flags for example. Saturdayseven (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

bayrak: http://www.bayrak.biz.tr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.31.248.13 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Largest flags

I have added a section on largest flags flown restored from a previous edit. Zarcadia (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a flag primarily a piece of cloth?

Or is a flag the symbol that is placed on the cloth? I think the into might need to be changed to reflect this distinction but we'll need to find sources. Saturdayseven (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article's defenition of "flag" is correct. I found this source from merriam-webster.com defining a flag: "a usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol (as of a nation), as a signaling device, or as a decoration"[1]Saturdayseven (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Added this reference to the article. Saturdayseven (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And both defenitions of flag are in the intro because the article also states: The term flag is also used to refer to the graphic design employed by a flag, or to its depiction in another medium. Saturdayseven (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Inspiration from Greece?

The Greek flag is included in the list of flags that have served as inspiration for other flags. But why? The section does not mention which flags were inspired by it. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it, it was rubbish, the Greek flag was inspired by the US flag... no countries mentioned so not of any use in this article. Dqfn13 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman Army Dragon standard

It might be worth mentioning the work done by the archaeologists of TimeTeam in the UK, making a Dragon banner and solving the roaring sound, caused by Chinese wind-chime drums of sorts secured to the staff, which also explained the odd blobs shown there on several of the source carvings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.75.66 (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I think you can go further, as there are clear heraldic differentiations between a standard, a banner, a banneret, a pennon and some other forms which elude me for the moment. If you treat vertical flags in a National context, then you should also certainly mention the Japanese, and, IIRC, Chinese/Mongolians, although I may be corrected on that. It might perhaps be better to remove the national references or relegate them to links to the Nations concerned.

Under flag language, you might also mention the UK's practice of inverting the Union Flag as a covert warning.

You should also expand on the stub reference in the introduction to military flags, above and beyond the use of semaphore. For starters, the British Army considers its colours as the identity of the unit, with the exception of the artillery, whose colours are its cannon, in a direct descent from the Roman Eagles. This is why the Colour is always saluted. Similarly, the Royal Navy's colours carried at the stem are always saluted on joining or leaving the ship, and an Admiral also hoists his own colours, depending on his rank as Vice-Admiral, Rear-Admiral, Admiral or Admiral of the Fleet, and indeed in Napoleonic times, indicative of the Division he is part of as well. A further Naval flag worth mentioning is the Decommissioning pennon, probably the longest flag in existence: I recall the Ark Royal aircraft carrier coming into Portsmouth after years at sea in the 1960s, it's siging-off pennon was several times the not inconsiderable length of the ship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.75.66 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag on the Moon

I feel like there should be a picture of the flag set up on the moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts. If for no other reason than it is a striking photo and was a giant leap for all flag-kind. That flag boldly went where no other flag had gone before. That flag is a symbol of human progress.

174.56.122.45 (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree, can you think of a good caption? I was going to go for something along the lines of "Flags are often planted to claim victory over something, or as a symbol to lay claim on a new place", but that's taken by the second image (of Jaan Künnap waving the Estonian flag on Lenin Peak). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of the currently-uncited language "attempt to emulate the rainbow flag's success"?

Regarding the 'In politics' section: "an attempt to emulate the rainbow flag's success" seems glib, spinny, and it's unclear what's being said. Without clear citation of the individual claims...

1. The bi and trans flags were closely emulative of the rainbow flag versus, say, expansions on the generalizable/generalized concept of community pride flags (see "emulate the rainbow flag's success").
2. The bi and trans flags were intended by their creators to be 'as successful' as the rainbow flag (see "emulate the rainbow flag's success"), and- by the way- the success metric here is unclear and frankly suspect.
3. The bi and trans flags were 'less successful' or 'it's too soon to tell' about their success relative to the rainbow flag- which remains an oddly-motivated comparison to include, and a hard one to evaluate (see "an attempt," implying some sort of question about the attempt's success); this claim seems entirely unnecessary, although I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

... this comes off as an insertion of someone's personal opinions about the relative value-however-defined of various pride flags. If anyone can demonstrate the veracity of any or all of these claims, and restructure the language so that the claims being made are more plainly stated, I invite them to do so; else, seems to me the language is entirely unnecessary. Mvseaver (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's uncited, and unnecessary. They're plainly derivatives. With a reliable source (?) more detailed claims might be useful at the Rainbow flag article; but not here. This is a general article on the topic. Or at least that's what it's supposed to be. Not one of our better articles. Anyhow, I've removed the claim. Haploidavey (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Original research

I removed the section "Similar flags" with the edit summary Remove highly subjective original research. This was reverted with the edit summary unsatisfactorily explained removal of content. Take it to talk page. I am not sure what exactly is unsatisfactory about my explanation. My explanation has two parts: 1) "highly subjective" should be quite obvious. Some of the "similarities" are actually extremely far-fetched. 2) "original research" is also quite clear. There were no reliable sources covering the selection. (Since then, some sources have been added. They are, however, not much more than blogs, they do not cite any reliable sources, and they are quite clearly just other subjective selections.)

The section was started nine days ago and has up to my removal been edited by one single IP editor, with one single exception (another IP, one edit), so there is no long-standing consensus for the section. On the contrary: As the top section of this talk page shows, a similar section was removed by consensus in 2010. The standing consensus is thus not to have a "Similar flags" section. In order to re-establish a section removed by consensus, a new consensus must be built first. --T*U (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to note my support for the removal. Wikipedia article content should be supported by reliable sources (in this case, vexillologists), not blogs or amateur websites, nor personal interpretations. Haploidavey (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of Encyclopædia Britannica did you fail to grasp? The other sources are make weight, but don't detract from these other citations. Throwing around WP:OR without reason is not helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to imply my support for removal of any well-supported material, nor a section based on the same. Haploidavey (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

7%266%3DthirteenThe link from EB is not an encyclopedic article. It is a list article where "Britannica editors share their opinions, insightful commentary and fun facts on a variety of topics of personal interest", in the web cite's own words. It has thus no more weight than any of the other subjective sources. Also: What you seem not to grasp, is the Wiki principle of consensus. The current consensus (see above) is not to have such section. Instead of trying to edit war in the section, you should try to create a new consensus in the talk page. Please self revert your last edit, and take part in the discussion instead per WP:BRD. --T*U (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp that I put in four (4) separate sources.

If the consensus is that these sources are insufficient, than I will certainly abide. But you need to grasp that articles evolve. Better and more sources change the dynamic. There is no "Edit war" here that I have seen. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Not one of the so-called sources can be regarded as reliable sources as described here. They are just subjective lists of what their creators perceive as similar. Exactly like the current section here.

2) I have counted 154 flags in the current "Similar flags" section. The so-called sources taken together cover less then half of them, most of which are not even commented on, just listed.

You could, of course, start by removing all the listed flags that are not covered by the so-called sources. But imho that is just a waste of time. I will soon start a RfC to get a wider input. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC is good idea. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about section "Similar flags"

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

The discussion is surprisingly scarce and I am working out the closure on common grounds taken by different discussants; rather than a simple head-count.The section shall be kept iff it is possible to restrict them to rigorously sourced groupings that have some sort of strong logical explanation as to the similarities, rather than being based on some abstract qualities.If this fails to happen within a reasonable span of time, the section shall be deleted.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

A newly created section "Similar flags" consists of a short introductory text and a gallery of 150+ flags grouped by alleged similarity. Should the section be kept or deleted? T*U (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete as highly subjective original research. This is just a gallery of flags that the creator of the section finds similar. Originally without any sources, some have been added later. They are all the same type of image galleries of flags perceived as similar by the list creators. Such subjective lists do not qualify as reliable sources. It should also be noted that a similar "Similar flags" section with 100+ flags was removed by consensus in November 2010. --T*U (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep.. My Opinion: I think the section is useful; the Encyclopedia Britannica source is valid. I personally see similarities in the flags, similar per color shapes, placement and objects on the flags, so I think others would also. It would be interesting to group the flags better, and then explain why groups of flags are similar, for example a common history. Per WP:Preserve keep and add citation needed tags in the places where sources are needed. If no sources can be found after x months stating some flag grooups are similar then delete the group flags. I think similarities can be subjective and need to be sourced and explained. But as WP is a work in progress, keep and source.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  Valid points raised by CuriousMind. I wouldn't be opposed to it if we can delete the large number of "similar" flags that aren't sourced, and limit them only to sourced groupings that have some sort of historical explanation as to why the flags are similar, not just because they may "look similar" to some people. That should be the only grounds for inclusion. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  CuriousMind01: The link from EB is not an encyclopedic article. It is a list article where "Britannica editors share their opinions, insightful commentary and fun facts on a variety of topics of personal interest", in the web cite's own words. It is therefore just the subjective opinion of the list creator and has no value as a reliable source, just like the other sources. --T*U (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  T*U My opinion: the EB article is a valuable reliable source, written by a named person, who was a senior editor, and the article has valid facts, and meets the criteria for a reliable source.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per above. This whole RFC effort proves that nobody cares much what we do. 5 million articles and we get overlooked. Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  7%266%3Dthirteen: Yeah, it is a rather meagre attendance so far. This being the main article in the area, one should think more people were interested. Well, let's wait and see if more editors turn up with their thoughts. --T*U (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  T*U We gave a party and nobody came. Or all dressed up and no place to go. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessarily large gallery (host it on Commons?). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 15:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I am not against having a section about flag similarities. But the procedure proposed by CuriousMind01 is not the way to go about it. Grouping the flags first and then looking for sources is to start in the wrong end. First we would need to agree on what flags to group and by which criteria, and that would in reality require sources. Also, deliberately entering content tagged with {{citation needed}} and then waiting for months is hardly admissible per WP: Verifiability. Note that WP:Preserve states that content ("facts or ideas") should be kept "if they meet the three article content retention policies", i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee about deleting the large number of "similar" flags that aren't sourced, and include only sourced groupings that have some sort of historical explanation as to why the flags are similar. That might include flags in pan-African colours, flags in pan-Slavic colours, flags with Nordic cross, all of which presumably possible to source. Other examples are known relations like US–Liberia and Switzerland–Red cross. Then we move away from subjective "I think these flags look similar" to more objective "these flags are similar because they are related". But then maybe the section should be titled "Related flags", not "Similar flags". --T*U (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Adapt: Best start from scratch. Adding or retaining unsourced content, or adding content then tagging for sources is certainly not the way to go; adding sourced groupings that have some sort of historical explanation as to why the flags are similar is sound reasoning, and conforms to policy. "Similarity" is something perceived; and per the very earliest discussions on the matter (see top page), "This one looks rather like that one, according to X sources - but so what?". "Relatedness" requires an historically informed, explanatory, sourced narrative. Haploidavey (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This might be a way to do it. Thanks for the suggestions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, related, not similar; good wording. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with relatedness with sources as good criteria for grouping. Looking at the section, it makes sense to have some of these together—the Union Jack flags, for example—whereas the Flag of Greenland probably has a closer relationship with the Flag of Denmark than with the Flag of Singapore. As it stands the section looks pretty reasonable at first glance, but there would be plenty of other ways to organize it that would look reasonable, based on shape and color. groupuscule (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• My opinion: WP:Preserve full quote is: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research."

Which to me means, if editors think the content belongs in the "finished" flag article, then tag citation needed. I don't think the Flag article is a "finished" article, and so WP:PReserve applies, and a similar flags section belongs in the article. I think historical groupings apply, example the Nordic Cross flags, and the similar flags noted in the Enc. Brit. article apply here too.

The RFC was written as a keep or delete the section, like an all or none approach, but I think keep and fix is a better approach here. Tag what needs sourcing, and after x time, delete what can't be sourced. Some groups may not have a common history, but are interesting to me to note similarities as done in the Enc Brit article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

CuriousMind01: Just a comment about WP:Preserve. If the facts or ideas belong in the "finished article", they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies. One of these policies is Verifiability, which means that sourcing is needed. If tagging with "citation needed" is needed, it does not meet the policy of Verifiability, so WP:Preserve does not apply. --T*U (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Similar flags again

It is now one month since the RfC was closed. During the month it was open and the month that since has expired, there has been exactly zero attempts to start the procedure defined in the closure statement: "to restrict them to rigorously sourced groupings that have some sort of strong logical explanation as to the similarities, rather than being based on some abstract qualities". Since the closure there has also been exactly zero suggestions for groupings to keep. In fact, there has been exactly zero edits to this talk page. I do not know how long "a reasonable span of time" is supposed to be, but it could soon be time to delete the whole section.

However, rather than deleting, I will try to make a start of a new section "Related flags" to replace the current section, taking examples from the RfC discussion. I hope the title will encourage people to add only groups that have more than a coincidental similarity.

There are many candidates for additional subsections. Here are some suggestions for which it should or could be possible to find sources:

• Pan-African colours (note that the relevant article is unsourced)
• South American flags based on the Flag of Gran Colombia
• Central American flags based on the flag of the Federal Republic of Central America
• Flags with Union Jack in the canton
• Flags based on the flag of the Ottoman Empire with its crescent and star (note that not all crescent-and-star-flags will qualify)
• Possible relationship between the flag of Texas and the flag of Chile
• and so on...

I have at least made a start. Perhaps others will follow? --T*U (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:verifiability add citation needed tag Reply

T*U The RFC text section is closed, so I responded here:

WP:Preserve applies because WP:Verifiability describes adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

Regarding: CuriousMind01: Just a comment about WP:Preserve. If the facts or ideas belong in the "finished article", they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies. One of these policies is Verifiability, which means that sourcing is needed. If tagging with "citation needed" is needed, it does not meet the policy of Verifiability, so WP:Preserve does not apply. --T*U (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

T*U Please see WP:verifiability "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

CuriousMind01: Forgive me if I am wrong, but I get the impression from your comment that you have not read the closing remarks of the RfC or my comment in the section above this one. The closing comment says nothing about citation needed-tagging, but requires "rigorously sourced groupings that have some sort of strong logical explanation as to the similarities". Failing that "within a reasonable span of time, the section shall be deleted". It can, of course, be discussed how lang "a reasonable span of time" is, but since no-one has even attempted to suggest "rigorously sourced groupings" during the month of the RfC and now soon one and a half month more, I think it is time to move on. As you will see, I have not only deleted the "Similar flags" section, but have also started a new section "Related flags", where "rigorously sourced groupings" can be presented and described, "sourced" being the key word. --T*U (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

T*U Sorry for not explaining, I was responding to your comment regarding WP Preserve, as an informational post, trying to explain how WP Preserve works, not to continue discussion post RFC. I did read the RFC closing statement and your comments and actions. I have no objection to the updates you made to the article. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

CuriousMind01: Fine, then! I hope someone takes me up on the challenge of expanding the "Related flags" section. And just for the record, I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of WP:Preserve, but that does not really matter now. Regards! --T*U (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://cenftp1.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/ESR/cwa14094-00-2001-Jan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403170745/http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20140525/SHE0101/305250197/High-flying-Up-time-Memorial-Day-Acuity-flag-world-s-tallest to http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20140525/SHE0101/305250197/High-flying-Up-time-Memorial-Day-Acuity-flag-world-s-tallest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge most of section on national flags into section on related flags

Most of the section on national flags discusses how some national flags served as a model for other flags. This duplicates some of the information presented in the section on related flags, which has the specific purpose of describing those relationships. I therefore propose to merge such content into the section on related flags. Hamish Lawson (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Raising the flag

In another article (Tripartite Convention) there is a red link for "flag-raising". "Flag raising ceremony" is a redirect to "Hoisting the flag". It would be nice if there was info at "Hoisting the flag" or in a separate section about the use of a flag raising or planting in claiming territory or formally acknowledging a change of government. As far as I can see there is no specific discussion of that here or elsewhere. If there is, I'd be happy to hear about it so that the link at "Tripartite Convention" can be properly directed. It seems to me that flag-raising is very often a crucial symbolic part of transfers of territory. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Intro definition too broad; proposal of a new one

Here is the introduction:

A flag is a piece of fabric (most often rectangular or quadrilateral) with a distinctive design and colours. It is used as a symbol, a signalling device, or for decoration.

The first sentence is so broad as to be useless. A blanket, a curtain, a beach towel, a table cloth, a cape, a rug, a tapestry, a scarf, and so on, are all pieces of fabric that are usually quadrilateral and have distinctive designs and colors.

And to say that such a piece of fabric is used as a symbol, a signalling device, or for decoration doesn't help, either: Superman's cape is a symbol, a handkerchief waved in surrender is a signalling device, and a pillowcase can be used for decoration.

We can arrive at a more adequate definition is we consider for a moment who uses flags and for what purposes? Nations, branches of the military, and other organizations that represent some major social agent; or institutions and agencies or agents who regulate the activities of other agents or agencies through long-distance communication. So a better definition would run:

A flag is a usually quadrilateral strip of fabric so colored or colored and figured as to symbolize for and announce to the world, in public display so prominent as to admit no obscuring, the existence or presence of a supremely significant social entity, or to communicate provisionally authoritative or regulative states of affairs to all and sundry.

I think this captures all the essentials of paradigmatic flags; it is not necessary to try to frame a definition so that it covers all possible variations of a reality, regardless of their status, in a single sentence; decorative flags aren't paradigmatic flags, so there's no point in mentioning them in the same breath as the paradigmatic ones—that would be like trying to frame the definition of automobile so that it included toy cars.

What do you think? Wordwright (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think that the most notable and interesting meaning of "flag" is its use to announce the presence, ownership, or allegiance of a place or thing to some governmental, usually territorial, entity. It's a really hard concept to articulate clearly, though. As you say, it can also provide information on status, like quarantine flags or even just "this is open". It can represent people's faith, advocacy, or belief in something - a gay pride flag, or a religious flag, or a sports team (not far from a religion in some places...). And it can also by just a decoration, like a flag for a holiday or a season. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag edit reference fix

Consider fixing references to this link manually. Refill2 messes up when attempting to fix references from this page. It tries to omit the use of looking at pages 33 and 41 separately. Perhaps whoever added this reference probably neglected to set page to 33 and 41 separately. I will not do this Refill2 edit. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I would imagine that it might involve some use of citationing an online archive web source. Sadly, some of the pages on that article are archived but forced upon a paywall, so I can't manually fix it myself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Notification of plans for significant changes

This is a very important article that's in desperate need of big updates. There are many significant problems regarding the accuracy and relevance of the content, and of the organization. This is much more than I can address in one edit, so I am working on creating a new version in my sandbox. You are welcome to contribute by suggesting changes here or at my talk page, or by editing my sandbox directly. (Also, please let me know if there's a different way I should be doing this. I'm still a pretty new editor.)  Not A  Witty Fish 21:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Chami Batch

Ahmad Chami Batch 101.191.211.247 (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Vexilloid Ships

The text says "Ships with vexilloids were represented on predynastic Egyptian pottery c. 3500 BCE." before "In antiquity, field signs or standards that can be categorised as vexilloid or "flag-like" were used in warfare, which originated in ancient Egypt or Assyria." Shouldn't that order be switched? 104.187.66.104 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll switch for now. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I forgot it's protected. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Vertical Flags

I feel like there should be an article depicting the vertical flag of each nation. The current section from my understanding is just depicting the fact that there are some flags meant to be vertical. I was surprised to find out something like this doesn't exist already. Perhaps, if not a page, it could be an addition to this page, showcasing some examples of the vertical flags of some nations? 7s3s (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)