Talk:Flag signals

message: Flag signals should be an overview for all the forms. How about "Flag signals" gets all the content at "flaghoist signalling", including the history. 
Flag signals gets a comprehensive 1 paragraph overview of "Semaphore" and either absorbs any stubs or summarizes any other land-based or other flag signal schemes. (This is curiously missing now...it talks about wig-wag and is crying out for flaghoist and semaphore descriptions.)  --Wtshymanski
:I concur that this article could, and even should, be an overview.  But 1) that should not preclude other articles, if they have (or could have) sufficient material to stand alone, and 2) as an overview it should not get too deeply into specifics of any sub-topic. I suspect that "flaghoist signalling" could be expanded, but in its present form I would agree to its inclusion here. Absorbtion of other stubs should be considered on a case by case basis. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Keep this as an overview.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flag signals]] 

message: "International maritime signal flags" would be decomposed into the history section of "flag signals", and any remaining content relevant to the current ICS would be put there, and then "International maritime signal flags" becomes a redirect to ICS. --Wtshymanski
:I favor deleting it entirely, with a redirect to either ICS or maritime flag signalling. (As I commented above, this article was poorly conceived, etc.)  I think I have already pretty much extracted the "content relevant to the current ICS".  The principal problem here is the large number of translations of this article, and I would like encourage the other wikis to switch to a translation of the ICS article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. This is what I thought I said. Instead of deletion, a redirect to ICS works. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So us two are agreed to a redirect on this article, though possibly pending on dealing with the other wikis and finding a new home for "substitute flag".  Should we put a note at Talk:International maritime signal flags to that effect? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we in favor of redirecting this page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International maritime signal flags]] 

message: We reserve "International Code of Signals" for the current merchant code flag pictures with only description and history particular to that code.  --Wtshymanski
:Sorry, no, I emphatically disagree here.  I suspect you may have some misunderstanding of the situation, which I would like to address.  First, the ICS is quite a bit more than "code flag pictures" (involving more than just flag signaling), and goes beyond just merchant shipping (e.g., signals to submarines, and the USA-USSR conventions).  Second, although the ICS  is the current standard by which merchant ships communicate (but going beyond mere flags), historically there have been quite a few other codes.  Third, the ICS is itself a notable international standard, independently of the broad topic of flag signalling. My position here is that the ICS article is fine as it is, and that the merge tag should be removed. Are you okay with that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Code of Signals]] 

message: "Naval flag signalling" becomes a redirect to "NATO signal flags" for the current NATO code (eliminating all references to historic and other navies and putting them in the "flaghoist signalling" part of flag signals). This would allow someone to document the signal practices of the Swiss navy if anyone felt moved to contribute. --Wtshymanski
:Must also disagree with this.  You have this backward: "NATO signal flags" is properly a subset of naval flag signalling, not the other way around.  (I suspect that what confuses the issue here is that — in the context of English language — there is a lot more material about NATO.)  Historically there is much untapped material, including some significant developments by the French.  For sure, the article is currently only a stub, but there is potential for much development possibly including — yes — the Austrian Navy).  My view is that it should not be merged. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Naval flag signalling]] 

message: :I am inclined to concur that this should be merged (as you have done), but it will need a new home if (as I recommend) "International maritime signal flags".  ICS is a likely candidate, but I am not happy with that.  This needs more contemplation and discussion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both "maritime" and "naval" signals use substitute or repeater flags to save on the number of flags carried in a set. Substitute must be a common topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  And likewise every article that shares a common element of "red cloth" should be merged?  Look, I don't really give a rat's ass about this particular article, because it's really just a rather tedious graphic with a bit of text tossed at it.  Keep it or toss it, as you wish.  The ICS article doesn't need it, as the basic explanation about substitutes is already covered (albeit very briefly). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be serious. If there's great differences between warship signals and commercial signals (apart from the obvious vocabulary or codebook), please explain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being serious. Substitute flag is a graphic with a few words of text stuck on; I do not object to deleting it. And I think you are pushing commonality way too far. (Do I need to explain this further?) As to the naval/maritime distinction, I have provided an explanation, in the appropriate location. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Substitute flag]] 

message: *Do not support merge, I do not support merge of Bravo Zulu with another article.  Bravo Zulu is very frequently used & warrants it's own separate article.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bravo Zulu]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flag signals. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204151146/http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime/?epi_menuItemID=923e01c531c0a3825b2a7fbd3227a759&epi_menuID=35ad5b8aabcefa1a0fc133443927a759&epi_baseMenuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759 to http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime/?epi_menuItemID=923e01c531c0a3825b2a7fbd3227a759&epi_menuID=35ad5b8aabcefa1a0fc133443927a759&epi_baseMenuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified