Talk:Union Jack/Archive 1

message: It links to an article on various American flags, none of which have anything to do with the Union Jack. It should be removed. 222.152.64.109 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebel Flag - why is this in the article?

message: An anon has just gone through the article uncritically changing every occurrence of "Union Jack" to "Union Flag", even where the phrase occurs in a quotation or refers to the colour terminology used by the (former) British Colour Council. I am reverting those obvious, factually mistaken changes, but leave it to wider consensus as to whether all such changes should be reverted. It seems to me that the prevailing terminology of the article should be consistent with the article's title, whatever that is agreed to be. Vilcxjo 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the article to using "Union Jack". Whatever the decision on the title of the article, the name in the article should be consistent with it. Rls 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is usually true most of the time, but there are exceptions, as in this case. I do however agree that quotes should not be changed and if they were it was by either accident or correction. Mark 11:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading this article today two things occur to me.  Firstly, as the article itself states, although 'Union Flag' is the correct official term, 'Union Jack' has achieved correctness through colloquial usage.  Therefore, arguments among civilians (I am a civilian) about whether it should be 'Union Jack' or 'Union Flag' are mainly based on pedantry.  Either would therefore be a correct header for the article.  Secondly, there is no consistency in the article in terms of usage.  Sometimes it is 'Union Flag', sometimes 'Union Jack', and on a couple of occasions a BBC-style 'union jack'.  Even if all are correct usages, would it not be less confusing for non-British readers if we picked one and stuck to it? - Adaru 10:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Jack/Union Flag (again) 

message: There's no real debate here... it's called the Union Jack, and every British person knows it. 
Who dreamed up this "Union Flag" stuff?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.10.177 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Jack/Union Flag (again again) 

message: Flag of the United Kingdom should be merged here. It's short now but when it grows its just going to be repetitive. I know that there are naming conventions for flags, but they should be secondary in cases where flags have their own name. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge - June 2006 

message: The whole point of keeping them separate were the following facts:
#This flag has a name.  It is universally called the "Union Jack", and officially the "Union Flag".
#Every country has a "Flag of ..." article about their flag.  So, according to many editors, there must be a Flag of the United Kingdom article.  We have had edit wars about this in the past.  
#The Union Jack is the Flag of the United Kingdom.  But it is also used in other countries (for example, in the flag of Australia).  It is also an official flag of Canada.  So, it doesn't make sense to have information of flag days in Canada where the Union Jack is flown in an article called Flag of the United Kingdom.
Because of these facts, a concensus was reached where there would be two articles:
#Flag of the United Kingdom which has minimal information and only specific to the flag's use as the national flag of the current country called the United Kingdom.  
#Union Jack, which would have detailed information about historical use, use in other countries, and in other flags.
This is why the current situation exists, which I think is a good compromise.  I think if one artice is merged into the other, we will just start a new cycle of edit wars which happened in the past.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we have two articles

message: It is a superposition of the flags of England, Scotland and Ireland, which are, respectively, the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick.
This isn't quite accurate.
It is accurate to say that the Union Jack is a superposition of three flags:
* The flag of England, the Cross of St. George
* The flag of Scotland, the Cross of St. Andrew
* The Cross of St. Patrick, representing Ireland.
At the time of the Act of Union, Ireland did not have a national flag. Insofar as anything at that time could be called a national flag, it would be the Green Flag. The Cross of St. Patrick was created based on the crest of the Order of St. Patrick, which was founded in the 1780's or so (reasonably close to the Act of Union), but it's inaccurate to say that it was "the flag of Ireland." -- EdwardOConnor
:Yes, you're right, I worded it very badly. I've rewritten it now. Feel free to reword it if you want to include any further information. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 18
*JTD, I know if and when NI leaves the UK, the Union Jack goes back to it's 1800 look. What would happen to the flag if Scotland left the UK? - iHoshie 09:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably depend on the nature of Scottish independence. If Scotland completely broke its ties with England, each nation would revert to its pre-1603 flag. If Scotland were to revert to an independent state in personal union with England (the status of the nations between 1603 and 1707), they would probably keep the Union Flag. Jsc1973 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's very important to note that in the Union Flag the Cross of St George is for England-and-Wales, not just England. Because it post-dates the union. Otherwise you get people talking about superimposing dragons on it and such like. Graldensblud 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superposition of flags

message: Can I suggest you put pictures of the three unmerged flags side by side?Mintguy
Hi,
Please note the union jack page I created in the Hebrew Wikipedia (under the Hebrew name for "The United Kingdom Flag"). I created a graphical representation of the unification of the flags. You may want to copy it. Beware that in Hebrew everything is written in right-to-left direction (not left-to-right).
MeirM 11:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Does anyone know (of a web link about) how to fold the flag? – Kaihsu 20:41, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
*Check here.  Under the "Pall for Caskets" section, there is no prescribed manner of folding.  However, I suggest to fold it in a square, if possible. Zscout370 21:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  folding the Union flag 

message: I noticed there is a short section about the ReFlag (adding black to the UK flag).  I have two questions: is this movement still going?  And also, will it be fine if I upload a image that I drew of the ReFlag (216x432 pixels, GIF format)?  Zscout370 02:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReFlag 

message: Do you think national flags and also British territories should just be covered here?  I do not think we should cover ensigns, since there are soo many to cover. Zscout370 03:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other flags with the Union Flag

message: How about slapping a great big dragon in the middle of it to represent Wales. I understand that the country was annexed by England in the 1200's, but it is a country in its own right now and deserves to be honored as such.
the flag was always loved by the Northern stated
:Wales never ceased to be a country in its own right, it simply fell under the jurastiction of English law hence the reason for talking about England and Wales as a singular concept in a legal sense (in contrast to separate legal systems in Scotland and N. Ireland).  An elected Welsh Assembly does now grant it some independence.  Although this may open can worms, I  suppose the reason Wales is not represented is that the flag is an emblem of a United Kingdom from three previously separate kingdoms.  Wales is a principality and not a kingdom. And remember, while the country refered to as the UK does include Wales, the Union Flag is not and has never been an official flag.
:What are the Northern stated(states?)?  Dainamo 22:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Welsh dragon does not appear on the Union Flag. This is because when the first Union Flag was created in 1606, the Principality of Wales by that time was already united with England and was no longer a separate principality. (from Royal.gov.uk) --M0RHI 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Welsh addition has been proposed, which would use the St David Cross, it looks like this: 
Sorry this is a crappy paint box version as the origanal picture was in an unscannable place, I couldn't find one elsewhere on the webDjarra 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We forgot someone. 

message: I'm explaining why I'm reverting Mais Oui's recent reversion of the article.
His/her version included the following wording:
:On April 12, 1606, a new flag to represent this union was specified in a royal decree, which is rather vague in terms of the actual design - no sketches accompanied the document. No flags from this early period survive, and it is doubtful if this early combination of the Saltire and the St George's Cross was ever used on land during the 17th century.
I'll address it bit-by-bit:
*"rather vague" — here's the exact wording: "...the Red Crosse...and the White Crosse...joyned togeether according to the forme made by our heralds, and sent by Us to our Admerall to be published to our Subjects..."
*"no sketches accompanied the document" — as the quotation shows, there clearly were sketches. Just because they haven't survived doesn't mean they didn't exist ever.
*"no flags from this early period survive" — how early a period do you mean? There are certainly pre-1801 flags surviving.
*"it is doubtful if this...was ever used on land" — everybody agrees that the flag was originally for aquatic use. So what?
But the point isn't the bit-by-bit, it's the overall effect: the overall effect of Mais Oui's wording is to create a vague impression of doubt in the mind of the reader. Doubt about what? Just what is Mais Oui trying to imply? He/she should come right out and say it. Doops |  talk 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insinuations 

message: I will not succumb to bullying. There is no academic evidence whatsoever for the existence of the flag represented in JW1805's diagram at the stated date 1606. He is the one asserting that there was. So I ask, again, politely, where on earth is his evidence? Here is the emission he deposited on my own Talk Page. Do with it what you will, because I have had him up to here. Follows:
:Hi, I have never heard of any controversy on the original version of the Union Jack.  Do you have any supporting evidence that the original version was something other than the superposition of the English and Scottish flags?  Please provide sources for this claim.  Wikipedia should only include generally established facts, not speculations.  Also, the Edit summery is not the place to engage in debate or to address other users.  Please use the talk page to discuss major changes and controversies, and address comments to specific users to that user's talk page.  Also, please take note of other Wikipedia policies, such as No personal attacks, and the Three revert rule. --JW1805 22:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment left at Mais Oui's Talk page 

message: OK, let's think about it this way:
*We all know that a two-cross union flag (St. George & St. Andrew) was in use in the 18th century; there's no dispute at all over its form. Examples certainly survive.
*We have a quotation to show that some sort of two-cross union flag was proposed in 1606.
*By Occam's razor, the natural assumption is that the two are the same, and that the flag had a continuous use in the interim.
*(Note that there is no quotation suggesting that the flag design was revisited in 1707. If such a quotation exists, please provide it.)
Mais Oui, if you believe that this assumption is unwarranted, please, please present a citation. Have you read books, articles, anything scholarly suggesting that the union flag changed form in or about 1801? I promise you it will be taken seriously. 
But, since the wikipedia is not the place for original research, we need a source for this belief. Furthermore, we need a source for the factual claims you keep making (that no 17th-century flags or sketches survive; and that the terms "union jack/flag" date to the 18th century). Maybe you're right, that the rest of us are lazy and closed-minded. But instead of just saying so, why not prove it with evidence? (Also, I wish that you would be more ready to assume good faith. It would make life more pleasant.) Doops |  talk 22:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A fresh approach

message: My comments on the newest version:
*I'm not a heraldry expert, but are you sure that the new statement "This saltire is overlaid on the saltire of St Andrew." is the same as "The saltire is counterchanged to combine it with the saltire of St Andrew." --JW1805 15:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest version 

message: List of British flags was only created on 25th July 2005, and yet somebody at some point has added the line: "See main article: List of British flags" hidden way down at the bottom of the Union Jack article. That seems like the tail trying to wag the dog.
Is List of British flags really the "main article", or is it in reality a subsidiary article, that belongs as a section at the bottom of the Union Jack page.
Remember that, de facto, the Union Jack page is the "Flag of the United Kingdom" page (for some reason the UK seems to be about the only one which has a nickname used for the article, rather than the standard "Flag of the ...." format (other places have pet names for their flags too, but do not use them as the Header). As the "Flag of the United Kingdom" page it seems very appropriate to give a mention to the other, subsidiary banners at the foot of the article.--Mais oui! 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is too large to be included in the main Union Jack page- particuarly as it includes different categories of flags used in the UK, as well as being part of a "List of flags" series. Astrotrain 20:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Impossible. Have you looked at these page? Each one is a real, honest-to-goodness full-length page. One is a text-heavy discussion of the Union Flag; the other is an image-rich list. Each deserves to be independent. Also, even if this page were renamed to the standard "Flag of the UK", it would only be about the national flag of that country, which is one single flag. All those other flags at "Flags of the UK", while interesting, are not the national flag. The template at the bottom of the page is a good & eye-catching way to link the two together. Doops |  talk 20:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the previous two posts that the articles should be separate.  List of British flags is not considered the main article either, since it is just a gallery of flags that incorporate the Union Jack. --JW1805 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "List of British flags" into "Union Jack" 

message: The section of this article on flag use gives colour specifications for "Royal Blue" and cites The Flag Institute's publication "British Flags & Emblems". A simple demonstration appears to show striking differences between the results of using different formulations available in Photoshop 7.0. Can anyone explain this? Dystopos 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in the article. This is because Pantone and CMYK are primarily for print (inks) and RGB and Web-hex are for screens (lights). The problem that computer screens are all different adds to the problem. I have no idea what the MoD and NATO colourings are used for. Greentubing 04:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, Pantone and CMYK are intended for different media from the RGB values. There isn't (and can't be) a unique way to convert between them, especially as it depends on the screen setting, so it's not really fair to say that they don't match up unless there are massive differences. Hex and RGB  are two different ways of encoding the same system, so it is fair to compare these, but they are meant to be different. The Websafe colours are meant to be the nearest browser safe RGB values to the colours, whereas the others are taken from a larger range. JPD (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the differences appear quite massive. The demonstration is more useful in undermining the expectation that color specs are authoritative across different technologies than in shedding light on what "royal blue" is supposed to look like. --Dystopos 16:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real issue is that you shouldn't trust Photoshop to tell you what Pantone colours look like, or use a screen to tell you what CMYK colours look like. You're right that the different specs can't be used across technologies, but that also means it's not right to use one technology to compare them. JPD (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The illustration was intended for personal curiousity, and I uploaded it for the discussion. The decision to include it in the article was made by another editor. --Dystopos 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Blues 

message: I have elsewhere proposed creating a Gallery of flags based on British ensigns which would relocate a large number of images from Gallery of flags by design. The proposed new gallery would show thumbnail images of all flags, national or otherwise, based on British ensigns. It would be subdivided into sections for the Blue, Red & White ensigns, the Sky Blue, and other variations. I welcome discussion on my proposal which would naturally be linked from this page. Dystopos 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better name would be Gallery of flags based on the Union Flag. But other than that quibble, yes, of course such a list (or, better yet, gallery) should exist — rather than the long and unwieldy list of such flags which this page one contained. Doops |  talk 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, a large number of flags were based specifically on the design of the ensign, which itself incorporates the Union Flag. So the proposal would create a gallery of ensign-based flags while other flags that use the Union Flag could still be individually notable enough to mention here. Am I misundersanding the derivation of these or is there another reason not to use my proposed title? Dystopos 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I think we need a disambiguation page. I understand that "Union Flag", while normally referring to the "Union Jack" was also the (English) name of the Flag of Sweden-Norway. See the article for that flag (which resembles the Union Jack somewhat). Any comments? Avalon 11:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple reference to the other flag would do.  Likewise "Union Jack" when used as a rgference to the USA's ensign garryq 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another "Union Flag"

message: At Union Jack#Specifications for flag use is a table specifying the flag's colors.  The line just above the table cites , but I couldn't find anything relevant at the page.  Flags of the World agrees that the colors are Panton 280 (blue) and Pantone 186 (red).  But I think the RGB translations given are wrong.  According to  or , those colors correspond to rgb(0,43,127) and rgb(206,17,38), which is what the actual flag image, :Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg, uses.  Does anyone know where the values in that table come from?  dbenbenn | talk 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned earlier in the page, there is no unique correspondence between Pantone shades (intended to describe printed material) and RGB values (intended to describe images on screens), so it is not really correct to say that the Pantone values correspond to rgb(0,43,127) and rgb(206,17,38). I presume that the link was intended to say that the info came from the Flag Institute in some form, but it would be good to have a better reference. I also think that we should not show any RGB or other specifications unless they are actually official in some sense. JPD (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. People put far too much stock in the idea that an online encyclopedia displayed on computer screens could provide an authoritative picture of a color. Whatever specifications govern the manufacture of flags for the UK government will be enough for a description here. --Dystopos 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Is the reflectional assymetry of the flag meant only so that a distinction can be made when the flag is flown upside-down as the article suggests, or is there more to this peculiarity?Loomis51 19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original reason was to give Scotland precedence over Ireland. Does the paragraph read ok now? JPD (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflectional Assymetry

message: While information on days when the Union Jack is flown in various countries is obviously appropriate for an article entitled Union Jack, I would have thought that if we bother to have a separate article for Flag of the United Kingdom and a Royal Union Flag section at Flag of Canada, it is slightly redundant to include the information here as well. JPD (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag days 

message: Someone added the statement "Until the Acts of Union 1707 it was practice for the flag in Scotland to have the Saltire over the St George's Cross and vice versa when flown in England" and the accompanying image.  However, the Flags of the World site  seems to indicate there is scant evidence that this flag was ever used.  Is there a source for this bold statement?  --JW1805 (Talk) 20:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FOTW page you mention says that the Scots did use that version. It doesn't provide a lot of evidence, but it hardly indicates that the evidence is  scant! JPD (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant that the evidence presented at FOTW is scant.  It says the flag "seems to have achieved some limited official sanction" (but this is only based on the interpretation of the word "interlaced".  Then it mentions an engraving on Edinburgh Castle.  And that's it.  Is there some other reference that has stronger evidence of actual use?  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have at hand any reference that actually goes into detail with the evidence, but that this version was used in Scotland/on Scottish ships is stated by many sources. Most don't state it as boldly as this article does at the moment, though - they simply say that it was used rather than imply it was always used. JPD (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add a "citation needed" tag to this sentence.  I just want to make sure it is properly referenced.  If necessary, we can add some clarification or expansion of this topic.  --JW1805 (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was removed, but I have restored it.  The bold claim in the article needs a source.    --JW1805 (Talk) 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the mention of the "Scottish" version as I was taught that in school and have seen the engraving of Edinburgh castle and seen a picture of that flag being flown in Dundee, unfortunately I have no sources, for which I apologise. Benson85 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scottish" version 

message: This article contains the briefest of mentions as to the controversy which can surround the flying of the Union Flag in Northern Ireland. Surely that the flag is seen as a sectarian symbol by a significant proportion of the population of a region in the UK warrants more of a mention? (for something in the news today, see here.) Martin 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: As I am sure you have all heard, we call it the Union Flag when it is on land, and the Union Jack when it is at sea. The vexillogical symbology beneath the flag picture say that is is a Civil flag, a State flag and a War flag - therefore meaning that it is flown on land. How can this be the case if the title of the article is the Union Jack. Perhaps it could be flown in Naval bases as the Union Jack? But the definition of Civil flag is that civilans can fly it on land.
I don't really know how to remedy this, but I just wanted to show the mistake. --Gausie 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flag_terminology#Vexillogical_symbols|Vexillogical symbols]]

message: Well done
Vivaverdi 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's useful "trivia", and there's stuff which is pretty useless. The stuff that was removed certainly falls into the latter category, IMO! Jenny Wong 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia removal 

message: I was always under the impression that the Union Jack (note I'm talking about at sea, before I get flamed) is flown at the bow of a Royal Navy ship when it is flying the Royal Standard, or it is giving due escort to a Royal Navy ship flying the Royal Standard. However, as you will see from this picture: BBC News - Evacuations from Lebanon, the HMS Bulwark is flying the Union Flag at the bow. Does anyone know why this would be, judging it didn't have the monarch on board, or could point me in the direction of a difinitive answer to the correct flying of the Union Jack on HM Ships? My only other theory is it had the British Ambassador to the Lebanon on board, in which case, it could be this or this flag (as the boat is not underway, it would be exempt from flying the blue ensign). Thoughts? Suggestions? M0RHI 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Terminology: Union Flag or Union Jack refers to flying the flag from the bow of a ship.  I thought that a national flag was always flown from the gaff or the stern, not the bow.  The exception, in UK, would be at the bow if the monarch is on board (or is accompanying...).  Should the Terminology section be changed to reflect this?  Michael Daly 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A jack is flown from the bow, as the terminology section says. The national ensign may be flown from the stern or the gaff. This is why some people insist that the term "union jack" only refers to the use of the flag at the bow of a ship, and in other cases it should be called the "union flag". The terminolgoy sections seems reasonably clear on this to me, but if you have suggested improvements, go ahead. JPD (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying at sea 

message: " If any of the following colours, namely—
 (a) any distinctive national colours except—
 (i) the red ensign,
 (ii) the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) with a white border, or
 (iii) any colours authorised or confirmed under section 2(3)(b); or
 (b) any colours usually worn by Her Majesty's ships or resembling those of Her Majesty, or
 (c) the pendant usually carried by Her Majesty's ships or any pendant resembling that pendant,
are hoisted on board any British ship without warrant from Her Majesty or from the Secretary of State, the master of the ship, or the owner of the ship (if on board), and every other person hoisting them shall be guilty of an offence."
I.E. UF with white border is OK.  Rich Farmbrough 14:01 8  August 2006 (GMT).
:So Auntie is wrong, we are now right. Rich Farmbrough 14:05 8  August 2006 (GMT).
::Arguably it is not longer the union flag when it has the white border, so it's a bit harsh to say they are wrong. This flag, initially used as a pilot flag, seems to have come to be used as a jack precisely because the union jack could not be flown by merchant vessels. JPD (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying a Union Flag from their boat? - Matthew238 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminality of civilian boats flying UF

message: "A well-known racist slogan in the UK is: There Ain't No Black In The Union Jack."
Is this entirely relevant? I don't think we need to spread this "slogan" about on an encyclopedia. Sparky 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not for things we like/don't like, but what is true. However you certainly could remove it on the grounds it adds little of value to the article Alci12 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I was quite careful not to express any strong emotion on the subject at all. I'll remove it, and preserve it here if anyone feels the need to restore it. Sparky 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was your use of 'need to spread' I was refering to, it seemed that you were suggesting that as it was racist we/wiki shouldn't repeat it which is obviously not correct. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant Alci12 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Trivia 

message: Given the growing number of dab links at the head of this article, which refer to the redirected "Union Jack", it seems like Union Jack ought to be a dab page not a redirect here. --J Clear 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes the most sense to me. After all, Union Jack is most associated with the flag, rather than any of the things currently listed in the disamb section. Martocticvs 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, reading up, there has been some very acrimonious discussions about changing the name to various things, this would be treading on the least possible number of opinionated toes! Emoscopes Talk 16:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Jack redirect 

message: :It was used as the flag in the colony of Newfoundland, and was used there during WW1 so therefore I think this should be added. People think the Republic of Newfoundland Flag was used during WW1 which it was not, the Union Jack was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseAgainst01 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newfoundland 

message: I heard today that the 'background colour' of the jack is Blue. It was on an edition of WWTBAM.
I came here to check that fact but couldnt find a reference to it. Just thought it might be useful to append that fact somewhere.. assuming its true.--Nasher 15:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Is saying 2+2=5 is wrong a point of view? — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that rather than making sarcastic comments, you consider firstly what the NPOV policy has to say about situations when there are differing views and secondly exactly what standard could be used to judge whether an English language term is "incorrect". The first section of this article covers the issue quite adequately without inserting supposedly authoritative statements in the intro. JPD (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
 Support:
*Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In history books and mass media Union Jack is by far the most common name. 205.157.110.11 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment moved from WP:RM --Stemonitis 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey, April

message: I don't know if these are covered -
* The Square Union Flag 
* The difference in colour between the official St Andrew's cross and the Union Flag background (approved by the Scottish parliament)
* The flag with black, instead of blue, and in the pan-African colours.
* The rainbow Jack.
--MacRusgail 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics not covered 

message: Is You tube putting the Union Flag upside down on there site notable enough to be put on here. Buc 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You tube? 

message: The Flag of the United Kingdom?--Steven X 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't we stop all the fussin' and a-feudin and call it...