Talk:Flag of Australia

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Thorpewilliam in topic Reversion of image addition
Former featured articleFlag of Australia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 10, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
July 13, 2015Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 3, 2006, September 3, 2007, September 3, 2008, September 3, 2009, September 3, 2010, September 3, 2011, September 3, 2012, September 3, 2015, September 3, 2018, September 3, 2020, September 3, 2021, September 3, 2023, and September 3, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article

Incorrect RGB Values for the Australian Flag

edit

Why is the image of the Australian Flag being shown with the British RGB values (1,33,105) and not the Australian RGB values (0,0,139) as recommended by the the Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers? (and correct digital values are actually shown on the wikipedia page!)

Would someone please remove the flag with the British blue values and use this flag that has the correct digital blue values as specified by the Australian Government. This is an image with the correct colours but it is not being used.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Australia_(converted).svg#/media/File:Flag_of_Australia.svg

Nextstep99 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good on ya, mate, for being so observant! This is the kind of esoteric editing that makes me feel honoured to be around here. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reversion of image addition

edit
 
The first Union Jack, seen in Sydney

My edit to include an image of the first Union Flag as exists near Circular Quay (representing the first flag used in Australia) was reverted by BilCat who gave the reason that "the flags can barely be seen or distinguished". I subsequently reinstated the edit and amended the caption, justifying it by arguing:

the focus of the image is on the flag in the foreground i.e. the first Union Jack. This monument represents the first flag used in Australia, in the area in which it was first raised and therefore has significance pertaining to the topic. Regarding your statement that it can barely be seen, this is a monument largely flanked by buildings on every side preventing wind

This reinstatement was again reverted by BilCat who conferred that "per WP:BRD, it's up to you to build a consensus" here. Though I do not see anything "bold" about the initial edit, I accept BilCat's criticism that the flag is somewhat obscured, but it remains clearly distinguishable regardless. Any feedback is welcome. In the event that responses are absent, I will most likely reinstate the image myself. I may try to take another picture of it, but I doubt it would be much different. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "bold" in WP:BRD is in reference to WP:BE BOLD, which encourages editors to make constructive edits without requiring them to discuss it first. BRD then applies if the edit is reverted.
To be clear, my problem is that this is an article about the flag, so photos should actually show a recognizable flag. It's barely recognizable as the First Union Jack, and other images are available of the flag design to show it, if that's desirable here. Also, there is nothing visible in the photo as a monument, so the reader, myself included, has no idea what this monument consists of, other than a flagpole and flag. Is that all there is to it? Or is one of the buildings in the photo the monument? I hope you understand my objections. I'd strongly recommend not adding the photo back into the article without a clear consensus to do so. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with BilCat. That photo is quite useless. Even with some explanation here, I cannot see what it's allegedly showing me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Fair. Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply