Talk:Flag of Quebec

message: For those interested in the subject, I have found a really good English language source on the history of Quebec's flag. It is very accurate and comparable to various texts I read on the same subject in French. Here is the link:
http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Provinces/Quebec.html
The site contains much info on the flags of the other provinces and the federal state.
-- Mathieugp 22:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most excellent source 

message: :Image:Ca-qc!c3.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 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ca-qc!c3.gif

message: I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as it is a highly specific topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: There is an image in this article showing a "hypothetical" Quebec blue ensign (File:British Flag of Quebec.svg) which apparently was never used, and may have never existed. In cursory research, I have discovered that no such flag was ever official, at least. All of which begs the question: Why is this image here? If there is no historical basis for it, I suggest deletion. By the way, on this January 21st, a very happy Quebec Flag Day to all! Yoho2001 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the deletion nomination over at Wikimedia Commons, which led me here.  I would agree that the flag, and the references to it, should be deleted from the article.  While prospective flags can sometimes be encyclopedic (the Pearson Pennant comes to mind), I don't get the sense that the blue ensign in this case was even that.  The content sounds to me more like a the speculation of a Wikipedian, contrary to WP:OR.  If someone later on can provide reliable sources showing that the blue ensign was legitimately in the mix at one time as a potential flag for the province, then the flag and appropriate references can be added back to the article.  But until then, I agree that it ought to be deleted.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue ensign...delete 

message: I have removed your addition of "Similar flags". You may not have noticed, but only the day before your edit, I had removed a similar section. That section contained two flags, the flags of Georgia (country) and Martinique. Your suggested addition of a third flag illustrates the problems with the whole idea of "Similar flags" sections: Similarity is highly subjective, and since there are no common criteria for what constitutes similarity, any choice will be original research. There are circumstances where similarity of flags is of interest, like in the flag of Chad article, where there is sourced information about flag similarity having caused international problems. In most cases, however, similarity has no encyclopedic value. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I had in fact not noticed your reversal of a previous attempt of an addition of a "Similar flags" section. Your arguments are valid, and I do not plan to revert your edit. My justification at the time was the fact that many other articles were doing it. That is all I had to say. - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar flags