Talk:Flag of the Falkland Islands

message: When the Argentines occupied the Falklands in 1982, what did they declare the islands' status to be? Did they declare them part of Tierra del Fuego province? Or just part of Argentina? Or in fact just a piece of territory under military occupation? Or what? This is important, because those few weeks in 1982 are the only time the Argentines were in possession. Whatever they delare to be the case since then is irrelevant. If it's the case that the Argentines made the Falklands part of Tierra del Fuego in 1982, then we need to discover what that province's flag was in 1982, because it certainly wasn't the one shown, which is new. Reading the relevant article gives the impression that it didn't have one, and just used the Argentine national flag. In other words, the only Argentine flag flown on the Falklands for those few brief weeks in 1982 was the national one. Because of its transitory and brief nature, and because the people of the Falklands opposed it, I don't think it deserves to be shown in this article - a mere link to its relevant page is all that is required. TharkunColl 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, its importance is minimal. As stated before Tierra del Fuego's constitution was created after the Falklands War, modifying all existent Argentine laws regarding the islands' status. Times have changed; on 1982 Tierra del Fuego was considered a national territory, now is a province. Learn some history before talking, ok? --Nkcs 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing that the Argentines have done since 1982 is relevant, because they haven't been in possession since then. Why don't you try and learn a bit of history? TharkunColl 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's relevant, who's denying it? If you didn't noticed before, my statement was regarding your "opinion" about the flag flown during the 1982 Argentine administration of the islands. Perhaps you should calm down a bit, it seems that every comment sounds offensive for you. --Nkcs 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tharkun, in 1982 the province didn't exist. It was called a Territory, and it function somewhat similar to the US's Organized territory. Therefore, it didn't have flag of its own. As you can see from my previous answer to Gibnews, I don't advocate the flag, but a link to it. If we decide to show the flag, it shouldn't have the same prominence as the current flags. And, for the record, the Argentine were in posession from 1826 to 1833. (Please see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A historical question

message: Seeing that both Tharkun and GibNews (along with other users, who weren't part of the argument) agreed to the compromise I proposed (albeit in a strange way, I must say). I will make this changes and unprotect the page. I won't hesitate to protect again and I will not engage in an edit war. I hope we can keep it civil.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is perfect. Thanks for your help! =) --Nkcs 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just returned to find that this compromise has been hammered out while I was away. For the record, I'm happy with it too. Vilĉjo 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Now that we moved away from the text and format, can I ask one of our British editors to reduce the size of the flags a little bit to improve the appearance? Right now we have more flags than text, maybe changing the size a tad will make the article look better... I'd rather not do the change myself to avoid potentially hurting sensibilities. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shrunk them from 250px to 200px, how does it look? (Of course it depends a lot on your monitor's resolution; it looks fine at 1280x1024, but may still look cluttered at lower resolutions.) The Singing Badger 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much cleaner... maybe we can move the civil ensign to the 1st para... Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags look and feel 

message: Argentinian irredentism about pre-British times and being the sore loser of the Falklands War, has no place here.  The flag associated with Tierra del Fuego is not the official flag hoisted by Falklanders.  Self determination is a human right and if you have a problem with it, contest your case before the United Nations.  Have you heard of Aztlan?  Well, it is a similarly sick and twisted game (Flag of Aztlán) that Mexico plays with the United States.  Please keep your territorial ambitions to yourself.  If the Falklanders and UK or Commonwealth authorities decide they want to hand over the Falklands to Argentina, they will do so.  The flag is more appropriate to the Falklands War article, so put it there.  
Another thing; if the Îles Malouines could belong to anybody, it would be the townspeople of Saint-Malo.  Since I am Breton, Argentinians can kiss my ass.  68.110.8.21 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagwavers on the South American mainland 

message: In all the fuss about including other flags the article seems to have lost the flag of the Governor of the Falkland Islands.  Was there any particular reason for this ?  --Gibnews 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governors flag 

message: # I added the  refimprove tag because the article had previously had an unreferenced tag, which was inaccurate, as it had references.
# If consensus is that the article is sufficiently well cited the tag can be removed.  Alternatively if there are specific places that need references they can either be referenced or tagged  and the  tag removed.
# Adding a second cite to a given fact need not be a problem, however it is generally more useful to find references for uncited facts. 
::Good luck, Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Hopefully that will help. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Rich. So I understand that the second reference is hasnt to be a problem. So I will add it againg. I still waiting for logical reasons for not to improve references from the other guys... (Moncho2002 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Richard, apparently not, again no its not needed it is already referenced. References for other material would be useful. Las referencias de otro material sería útil. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Dear Curry. As I told you before, an administrator of Wikipedia -Richard-, asked to improve the references. I understood he was talking about the last improvements of information, that were controversial too. They had a reference from Fis (Fishing Info Services ), that can be for some people not much reliable. So I added that. But if you don’t want more than 1 reference, and is important for you, thats ok. I leave the one from Mercopress that I understand is better than the other.  Besides I usually see more than one reference in a lot of articles and that is not bad. Even, I usually see references in other languages when they are relevant. That’s why I added the link of Unasur. But I desisted from add that information in order to get an agreement with you. I really don’t like this kind of “edit wars”, but your position is sometimes hard and illogic. Thas why I asked Richard about what he wanted when he asked for referencies. I give you my hand to have a friendly talk. As always. (Moncho2002 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The original reference was perfectly reliable and had a neutral title, you've chosen to replace it repeatedly with one that directly quotes one side.  So I will revert to the previous text, while you explain why you think this is helpful.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MercoPress, as you can read, is a neutral media and I think is more reliable and appropriate for this subject than Fish Info Service. I give up with Unasur link, and two references. But please, don’t start again. Regards.--Moncho2002 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of that link is not neutral, I made no comment on the media and your command of English is more than adequate for making the distinction, it is presenting the view of one side only.  We do not introduce POV text by the back door, which is effectively what you're doing.  I invited you to discuss why you insist on this link, please do so and don't revert until any such discussion is finished. WP:BRD is appropriate here.  Start?  You have continuously sought to impose your view over an existing consensus.  Please stop and use the talk page.  Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Refimprove

message: Can we please have a more up to date svg versions of these former colonial flags of the Falkland Islands please (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4523:B00B:9EF:F101 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Former flags

message: Support the 2020 proposal to merge List of Falkland Islands flags to here; both articles are short and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal