Talk:Flag of Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello Zscout370, would you like to discussion the Maple Leaf Flag?

Howdy Zscout370, :)

Would you like to talk about my contributions to the Canadian Maple Leaf page? Thank you for your kind consideration.

Take care, :) ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was a bit confused on why you brought up the US, French and Irish flags into the article, so that was the basis of my first and only revert on this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Don, I first need to suggest to remove the flags that are unrelated to the article, mainly the French and the Irish flags. Unless they have something to do with the creation of the Canadian flag, I suggest they should be removed. Other than that, I do not know what else for right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Zscout370, :)

Ok, if you want them removed, sure no problem. May I ask though if a separate page on the form the Maple Leaf Flag could be created and linked to the original page?

What do you think of that idea eh? ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Zscout370 about SimonP's and GroundZero's Arbitary Deletion

Howdy Zscout370,

This is just to let you know that I enjoyed our conversation very much about my contribution to the Flag of Canada page. You very very professional, easy going and nice to talk too. However, SimonP and GroundZero have seen fit to arbitarily deem my additions as "POV warranting Deletion" without any discussion. I am not happy about such "blatant editoral presumption" on their parts. I have have no prior dealings with GroundZero, but I am "well acquainted" with SimonP's style. He loves to add material without references and that retort that they are available in comtemptary Newpaper Articles. A claim that is quite difficult to double check, as most people are not career librarians, or such.

At any rate for the time being, I have taken the liberity to move my Republican Tricolour contributions to a separate page, linked below,

See also French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag.

Just to let yaa know, any blatant deletion/editing of this new page or the link to it on the Flag of Canada page, and I shall be asking you to contact the Administrations TO LOCK BOTH PAGES for Dispute Resolution.

Take care, and best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the above link from the article, because the French tricolor was not a factor in the creation of the Canadian national flag. I own a book about this subject called "I Stand For Canada." The only flag that this book even thought up could hamper this flag the flag of Peru. The remark, made in page 100 of the book, Colonel Duguid said "Has Peru got a new colony?" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Zscout370,

A man after my own heart eh, I own that book as well. The book "I stand for Canada" is an invaluable book indeed. The book is a very thorough, detailed chronology of the development of the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. In my opinion, its the least bias book that comes the cloest to telling the whole story.

However, the book does not tell the whole story. Would you please consider leaving the link to my French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag page, on the present Flag of Canada page?

I promise to make no more additions to this Flag of Canada page, whilst we can come to a consensus on my page French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag. Does this sound reasonable to you, Zscout370?

Thanks again, for your kind consideration of this matter. ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to jump in here with a mention of another extremely valuable source of information on the flag: John Matheson's book, Canada's Flag: A Search for a Country is an excellent insight into how the flag was developed and the behind-the-scenes working of the Flag committee. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I am going to start a section on references and futher reading. My main goal is to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to try ans fix this article first, then I could look at the article. However, I just think the article you created could fall under WP:NOR. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As an ordinary user, I am not able to delete a page. If it is to be deleted, and I think it should be unless you provide sources for this stuff, it would have to go through the Votes for Deletion process. It looks now like you just made it up yourself. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If you are able to provide sources, then please do so. It would both improve the article and avoid future edit wars. Regards, Ground Zero 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist History

Is it possible that this article is substantially wrong about who designed the flag? [1] which is a Canadian government site, has an alternate history. Then there is [2]. Tim Bray 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The maple leaf designer is mentioned in a book I own about the Canadian flag. I will look at the other links later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello folkes. Here is a link to the the memo of the so-called "Father-on-the-Flag", Dr. G.F.G. Stanley,

http://people.stfx.ca/lstanley/stanley/flagmemo2.htm

As per the truth (i.e., real story) behind the origin of the design of the present flag ... well I'm not getting into "that-one" again!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what the website is trying to get at is that Stanley presented the idea of the Canadian flag, while the persons mentioned in the first link refined it. I do remember the story about Mr. Jacques St-Cyr designing the maple leaf design. [3] seems to match what the above websites say. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley conceived the overall design of the flag: red-white-red with a single red maple leaf. Matheson widened the white section to be half the flag's area. St-Cyr designed the 11-point abstract maple leaf. Indefatigable 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag on backpacks

Can somthing be said about how (allegedly) Canadians traveling in Europe sew the their flag or the maple leaf on their backpack to distinguish them as Canadian and not American? --Jonny 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello:

Yep, it's true. Any Canadian student going abroad has a Candian flag stitched to the backpack for this reason. In fact, many back packs are sold in the country with the aforementioned patch already sewn on. However, arsehole Americans can be seen everywhere with Canadian flags sewn on their backpacks, hats, shirts, jackets and pockets, with their passports tucked inside plastic protective sleeves with maple leaves on them so they can act like complete pricks and blame it it us like the shitheads they are. I don't think it belongs in the article, mind. I don't touch alcohol myself, but if I did, when abroad, I'd pick one night where I'd be in a bar with a big stars and stripes on my hat, waving the American flag and shouting USA! USA! USA to piss everyone off as I got loaded.

You're a jackass.

Format of flag

Is there a good reason why this doesn't have the format of the Dannebrog, Tricolore, Union Jack? If a page is just about a flag, shouldn't it be as big as possible? --Henrygb 03:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather use a standard hoist size (of 125 px) so the various flags can be readily compared. The Image:Flag of Canada link is there to provide the full size image.

Urhixidur 13:39, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

weblink

I added a link to my article, it is very informational and released under CreativeCommons. Discuss here about it if you have to say anything. NSK 12:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State funeral of Winston Churchill

I had to put note of the passing and state funeral of Winston Churchill because Prime Minister Lester Pearson attended the funeral. The queen approved the new flag when Pearson was in London to attend the funeral. SNIyer12, 18:04 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you inserted the reference the Churchill funeral, then took it out, arguing that it was not necessary. More recently, you've reinserted it. I didn't see the relevance of the original reference to the Churchill funeral and approved of your decision to remove it. Now I'm puzzled about your choice to put it back in. HistoryBA 03:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Duality Flag

Before I put up an request for the article, do you think this flag (was The Renewed Canadian Flag) is very notable in Canada and should get an article in here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt many would remember seeing it and even less knowing what it is. It is still more of a one man project then anything. --Marc pasquin 22:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Marc (hey! are you from FOTW by any chance?) I even have lost contact with Hank himself and I think he was the one who was complaining to the FOTW mailing list about an issue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am *that* Marc Pasquin. His problem though was in regard to his proposal for a quebec provincial flag.--Marc pasquin 17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I never seen that before. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Funerals and royal proclamations

Sir W. C.'s funeral was not Pearson's only opportuninty to meet with the Queen: he could have arranged a meeting regardless of the circumstances. In fact, he didn't even have to meet with the Queen to arrange the royal proclamation; it could have all been done by correspondence. This is the way the royal procalamtion of Canadian royal arms was done in 1921; the flag situation was analogous. The funeral merely gave a convenient opportunity for the Queen to sign the proclamation with Pearson in the same room. A nice touch, but not a requirement. Indefatigable 16:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the news accounts between the time the flag was adopted and the time Churchill passed away. None of them have any indication about Pearson arranging a meeting with the queen to have the new flag approved. Indefatigable, I agree with what you said about the opportunity the funeral gave. I've seen the tapes of Pierre Trudeau signing the repatriated Constitution in 1982. When he did, the queen was present so that she could sign it also. A meeting had been arranged with the the Queen so that they both could sign it at the same time. The same thing applied here. SNIyer12 21:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

And yet Trudeau managed to meet with the Queen without having to attend a funeral. As I understand it, this is Indefatgable's point. The PM can meet with the Queen when he/she wants. A funeral is not necessary. HistoryBA 22:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Centennial flag

there is also the official canadian centennial flag of 1967 http://www.hampshireflag.co.uk/world-flags/allflags/ca_100.html

There are many other flags in Canada. This article is about the national flag. Ground Zero | t 13:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

National Flag of Canada

Hello! The Canadian flag is officially called the National Flag of Canada and is referred to in the article upfront as such. I realise why the article is entitled Flag of Canada (for consistency), but there's no reason to dewikify or alter the lead and the diff between the two is next to none. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I dewikified the bolded article name because that's what the Style Guide says. I'll find a reference later. Style Guide says to move links later in the intro paragraphs. I'm okay restoring the lead to "The National Flag of Canada is...." if you want. I think you've provided a good reason. Ground Zero | t 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey there; thanks! Actually, the style guide has since been revised to account for exceptions: despite the prior directive, many titles are so wikified and – for lengthy or complex leads – I would actually encourage this practice to preclude possible tautologies or for clarity. In any event, thanks for your accommodation. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So why are the links needed here in the article title when both "national flag" and "Canada" appear elsewhere in the intro paragraphs? It seems that the directive can be respected and the appropriate links made in the intro paras. Furthermore, you are the one who amended the Manual seemingly to reflect your own preference, and it does not seem to have been well-accepted, so I don't think you should be applying the "new rule" just yet. I strongly disagree, and do not think it is necessary. I'm sorry to sound a bit strong on this point, but I do feel strongly about it. I do not think that your edit was consistent with the spirit of the Manual, and have reverted it. Ground Zero | t 23:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. While this is a preference with some articles (and I'm not at all advocating for this across the board, only when needed), I amended the guide to reflect this reality in Wp articles (perhaps I edited this erroneously initially ... mea culpa) but the comment was later restored by the original user including qualification ... I merely refined it and it has not since been changed. In any event, a guideline means nothing if others do not respect or adhere to it. Moreover, by wikifying the initial links, there's no reason to have a tautology in the intro: 'Canadian national' is redundant, and perhaps this needs to be edited. Lastly, you are the only user who has so far objected to (and frankly, flip-flopped on) this, which was in place for awhile previously. This is not inconsistent with Wp style, just with personal style. On this basis, I agree to keep the article as is pending additional discussion. E Pluribus Anthony 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Where the tautology is in the current version? In what way did I flip-flop? I made some clarifications to my original comments after reviewing the article and the edits to the manual further, but I don't see a change in my basic position. And I still do not see why the links have to be moved from very early on in the article to the first line as you are insisting on. Ground Zero | t 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• It may be that the "flip-flop" was agreeing to "National flag" instead of just "Flag". I did so because you presented a valid argument for the change. I would call that respecting the views of other Wikipedians (you) and working toward consensus (with you). I think you should really think twice about accusing me of flip-flopping on that. Ground Zero | t 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

National flag is explicit; later on, "Canadian national" is somewhat redundant (specific references like CN notwithstanding): too much said, not enough linked effectively. Perhaps the article introduction needs refinement. I don't see a change in my basic position either, and (I'll rephrase) I'm not insisting on wikifying those things upfront per se in this article or in most articles: it merely seems logical to do so initially here than later. As well: after I informed you that the flag's official moniker was the National Flag of Canada, you supported that; that seems to be what I called it, but will retract that statement if it's conducive to good relations. And perhaps this demonstrates the need for mutual clarity before ... expanding on an issue.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments, but since this seems to be a misunderstanding between you and me, I'll take it over to your talk page so that we can sort things out between us. Ground Zero | t 02:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Great; I'll clarify on user pages. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 02:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Satire Flag

Does this really belong on the page? There are many satire flags for Canada and it seems odd to include this in the article, especially considering it was originally accompanied (and assumedly motivated) by errant information.

I took it out; it really had no place in this article, and was unnecessarily political. The pot flags can stay in the pot articles- plus I'm not aprticularly a fan of seeing my national flag mocked this way in a serious article. -brihard 14:15 15 February 2006, EST

I agree its disrespect to the flag

aw, come on! the pot flag is cool! im canadian, im a suppoter of pot(ok i enforce the stereotype,fuck you) and i think it looks cool.24.144.137.244 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Act of Parliament

Regarding this phrase from the article: In 1963, the minority Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson gained power, and decided to adopt an official Canadian flag, by act of Parliament. I'm don't know whether Pearson intended to use an A of P, but in the end he did not. In the British tradition, national flags and coats of arms are part of the royal perogative, and the Act of Union 1801 explicitly assigns to the sovereign the right to create them by royal proclamation. In 1964 the Senate and H of C passed motions requesting the Queen to create a national flag of a certain design, but it was the Queen's royal proclamation that made the flag legal -- the procedures were different in detail from an A of P. I suspect that the phrase in the article (by act of Parliament) is a simple mistake and should be deleted, but if it is verifiable, we should mention later in the article that there was in fact no A of P. Indefatigable 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duality Flag

I am not sure how important this flag is now, but if y'all wish to write about it, here is the graphic for it: Image:Canadian Duality Flag.svg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This has failed for two main reason. The image of the comic book can't fair use applied as the article isnt about the comic book or associated production of it(ie Author, illistrator, publisher etc). There are only three references, for something that grew and developed with controvestiy it would be reason to expect a broader range of sources. Gnangarra 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

History of the National Flag (not only the current flag)

Since the current article is mostly about the Maple leaf flag with very little about the history of the flag, I suggest using Flag of Australia, Flag of Belarus and other flag FAs as examples for improvement (Wikipedia:Featured articles#Culture and society). Adding a comprehensive History section with all the previous National Flags of Canada pictured and discussed. Starting with the 1801 flag, describing the 1868 — 1922, 1924 — 1957 and the 1957 — 1965 flags (see here). Doable? feydey 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll take a run-through of FOTW and see what the order of flag is. I still think this article will be pretty long, but I think is a good thing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One more question, should this article be in Canadian English? I have no problems either way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Certainly. feydey 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I will be gone most of the day, so just do it whenever. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage book

I got my flag book from Canadian Heritage today and I will try to add some data from it. It is the same information that can be found online, with a few additions and clearer images (a better construction sheet). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Folding the Flag

Is there a good way of folding the flag, as there is with the US Flag? - Matthew238 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is two methods that I know of: there is folding it for breaking (where the flag is partially folded, then rolled up and raised on a flag pole) and folding in a sqaure to where the maple leaf is mostly shown (this was from the Public Works Dept). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadistic bastards

Hi:

Out of curiousity, who thinks it was a bunch of sadistic bastards who chose to decorate our flags with a 25-sided polygon so that no school child on earth could draw the fucking thing? Sure the Stars and Stripes has loads of stars, but it's fun for a kid to draw all those stars with a flip of the pencil. The Union Jack is complex, but straightforward once you tackle it. The maple leaf? Sheesh! If you go to a gradeschool, the walls are covered with these things that look like bloodstains as they try to draw the flag for their arts and crafts.

AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.188.47 (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Frankly the design of the flag does not take into account of people of low intelligence and no artistic skills. --Kvasir 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha wow that was oddly random.

Maple leaf

The article says that the leaf is a sugar maple leaf. Do we have a citation for that claim? It looks like a generic leaf to me, and - coming from BC - is evocative to me of the bigleaf maple. I find it hard to believe that the officials designing the flag would have chosen a variety of tree native to some regions, when other varieties exist elsewhere, but I may be living in lotusland. Fishhead64 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is from Matheson in his writings, annoted at [4]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Fishhead64 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Officially the leaf is not a sugar maple, but a generic maple leaf representing the 10 species of maple native to every Canadian province[5][6]. The generic maple tree species was also chosen as official Canadian arboreal emblem in 1996 and specifically not any one type of maple.70.64.138.246 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you know me and my friends have always thought it looks like a pot leaf. iv'e one that actually does have a pot leaf on it in my locker24.144.137.244 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I faced that problem in high school myself when I had a maple leaf earing. Yes, there is a variant of the flag where the maple leaf is replaced by a pot leaf and can be bought for about 10 USD. However, I do not think it will be worth noting that in this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy Flag Day

Happy Flag Day everyone. Let's try to get this article to GA/featured status in 2007. I'll see if I can get some books out there our flag. If anyone wants to collaborate to improve this article I'd be happy to help. Bobo is soft 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help. Happy Flag Day! Jentile 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bicolour

I have edited the flag caption. It read "bicolour" which I changed to "vertical triband." It is neither a tricolour nor a bicolour. A tricolour has three stripes of different colours (e.g. national flags of France, Ireland, The Netherlands); a bicolour has only two stripes of different colours (e.g. national flags of Portgual, Algeria, Angola, Ukraine). Like Canada, several other countries have tribands that use two colours: Argentina, Austria, Nigeria, Spain, Honduras, Latvia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Mongolia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru. - Slow Graffiti 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The present Maple Leaf Flag of Canada is a vertical tricolour. The term tricolour simply means three different areas. This new term triband is a recent invention (of the last 20 years or so) and its use just adds confusion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When I think of bicolor flags, I tend to think of Poland. Tricolor, I think of the French, Italian or Russian flags. With the Canadian flag, I just think the triband would be easier, since it shows three bands regardless of color. We can always explain the vexillology terms in the article or on a list of terms. I am sure there is a list already here, but I need to find it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don, it is good to see you're still around! The Maple Leaf is definitely not a tricolour as it does not have different colours for each band. In fact, as the article states, in heraldic terms, it is a red flag with a white square in the centre. Matheson points out in his book that this was a unique invention at the time and officially given the term Canadian pale for it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the Canadian Government's official blazon for the flag is "Canadian pale." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"two angry faces arguing"

By a figure-ground reversal of the white square, the two upper corners of the square can be seen as silhouettes of two angry faces arguing. This has often been considered evocative of the nature of Canadian federalism, but was wholly unintentional. Can someone explain this to me? I do not see it. I also wonder about its relevance to the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the case of one of those vase-or-2-faces illusions. Keep staring. --Kvasir 05:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see it either. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be one of those "devil's face" bills or those damn 3D posters I can't see but my other question stands. How is this relevant to the article? I believe it should be removed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed the paragraph. If someone wants to re-insert it, I'd appreciate a reasoning and a reference. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The two noses come down diagonally from the top corners of the white square and their foreheads are touching. Its easy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.1.74 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrepencies

In the article text it mentions that the flag was adopted in 64, yet flown in 65. But in the panel on the left it claims it was adopted in 65. What's the deal?

142.68.45.42 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. That sentence in the lead was a little misleading. I've removed it since the very next sentence nicely states that the flag first flew 15 Feb 65. The history section goes into the detail that it passed House of Commons and Senate in December 1964 and received Royal Assent in Jan. 1965 but that proclamation was delayed until 15 Feb. Just like the BNA Act was signed on 29 March 1867 but came into effect on 1 July. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Source on Colour

Is there any reliable sources that the colours of the Flag are "from Saint George's Cross, and white, from the French royal emblem since King Charles VII" as it currently states? The Canadian Heritage Website only states that Red and White are colours commonly used by Britain and France throughout History, and mentions nothing influencing King George V's decision to make Red and White the national colours. If anything it was more likely that his decision was influenced by Red Maple Leafs used on soldiers uniforms during the First World War, but that also is unsubstantiated.

Malachi is survivin (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that it was ever explicitly stated why red and white were chosen. Page 3 of GFG Stanley's memo does state, however, that red and white were traditionally associated with Britain and France. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I will be reviewing this article. I like to review a section or two at a time, so please feel free to address the concerns I bring up at any time (no need to wait for the review to be finished).

1. From the "Design" section, the first two sentences should be referenced.
2. I remember this flag being a big deal in some areas. Is any reliable information available on it? If so, I think it would be a good addition to the article because it shows that the current flag design continues to be a subject of debate.
   1. Perhaps Canadian Duality Flag should be merged into this article (minus the trivia about Richard and Geoffrion), and the information at trcf.ca seems good.
      • A brief mention amongst alternative flags might be appropriate. It is a minor sidenote of no consequence and should not be given to much prominence in comparison to information about the current flag. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That makes sense. Since the mentions of Quebec's flag and the Acadian flag are mentioned in the lead but not in the article itself, the two of them and the duality flag could be mentioned in a short paragraph. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Using "half-mast" as a verb sounds awkward. "fly the flag at half-mast" would be better.
4. As mentioned in the FAC, "what looks the best" sounds informal. I would recommend changing the wording to something like "what is most visually appealing".
5. From the history section, "de jure" could use a link to its entry on Wiktionary.
6. In the "History" section, the article claims that some information comes from Mike: The Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, but this book is not cited as a reference.
7. A citation should be used for "Attachment to the old Canadian Red Ensign persisted for quite a while for many people, especially veterans."
8. In "Pearson had been a significant broker during the Suez Crisis of 1956, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." Wikilinks should be used for "Suez Crisis" and "Nobel Peace Prize".
9. I wanted to wait until I had watched the video linked in reference 14 to verify this, but most of the second paragraph in the "History" section is unreferenced (King, WWII, controversy leading to the Great Flag Debate, Pearson's Nobel Prize, and Egypt's objection)
10. In the final paragraph of the "History" section, the M and F in "maple leaf flag" are not capitalized. They are capitalized everywhere else in the article, so this should be consistent.
11. At the end of the "Protocol" section, it would be good to provide the most recent information about the half-mast controversy. The House of Commons voted on the issue on April 2 (the story can be seen here).

That should be it. There are a few things left to deal with, so I will place the article on hold for now. I want to mention that of all the articles that I've reviewed, the quality of the prose in this article has been the best. Once the concerns brought up here have been addressed, I will look over the article again to make sure it's all good. If you have any questions about the concerns I have brought up, please mention them here or on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed reading it. I'll go through your list now. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Gary King (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job. This article now meets all of the GA criteria:

• It is well-written, accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated appropriately.

I have listed it as a Good Article. Congratulations! GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article has copyedit issues

Right now, this article is going through WP:FAC, and some copyedit issues have been brought up. They can be found here. If anyone has time, feel free to help fix them. I will continue to work on them until the person who brought up the issues is satisfied. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Still to do: Fill in the history section on the early days: the beginning unofficial (and official at sea) use of the Red Ensign shortly after Confederation and its updates, the 1920s commission to develop a flag (abandoned), Mackenzie King's 1945 order-in-council to permit use of Red Ensign until a flag is adopted, the 1945-46 commission and its recommended flag, tie into Pearson's drive for a unique flag. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been completely covered now. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Snaky sentence

Under th "History" section, the sentece beginning "During the Second World War, there was an effort to create..." turns into a real snake, and it's a bit hard to follow, especially with the quotation at the end. Since I'm not quite sure what it means, I'm hesitant to chop it up. Thoughts? Risker (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've chopped it into a few pieces. Is it any easier to comprehend? Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone is screwing up this article, and it ain't me

Is this why I was blocked for 10 days, or something? This is bad and this page is acting all screwy but it isn't my fault. Could someone explain what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.125.215 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaf image on flag here has incorrect proportions. See http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/df2-eng.cfm for proper shape of esecially the bottom part of the leaf.

Page hacked?

When I linked a moment ago to the article page I was sent to a hacked page. Any ideas as to what happened? Ozdaren (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but there doesn't seem to be any reference to it in the page history. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, interesting all the same. I wonder how they did it? Ozdaren (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A Courteous Note

Just letting you Wikipedias know that someone is spamming the link to edit this page on a rather high traffic site. I'm sure it'll get resolved soon (once the mods on said site wake up), but just keeping you in the loop. This isn't a love for wikipedia, just more of a hatred at one of my e-haunts getting spammed. Regardless, now you know. --24.68.144.179 (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles

I just want to congratulate you guys on making this article into a featured article status! $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wind Tunnel does not equal Visual Appeal

What's up with "The points of the maple leaf were determined by taking various designs and putting them in a wind tunnel to see what was most visually appealing.[10]" I don't have the book, so I can't look it up, but this doesn't make much sense to me. You can use a wind tunnel to determine how streamlined something is, but you can't use it determine how nice something looks. Was a cut-out of the leaf put in a wind tunnel? Was the whole flag put into a wind tunnel to see which flag looked best when ruffled by wind? This sentence should be improved. - Enuja (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They put whole flags with different amounts of points on the maple leaf into a wind tunnel in order to see what the flag would look like from a distance in a strong wind. They found out that more points on the leaf looked very blurry in windy conditions so they settled on the 11 point leaf. If you look at the CBC archives on the flag debate you will see that the original flag approved by Parliament did have more points on the leaf than the final flag design. Seen0288 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I edited the article to reflect this information. I don't think I was able to come up with the best phrasing ever, but I think some detail needs to stay, if the bit about the wind tunnel is going to stay. - Enuja (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the book is online. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Flag

"Its adoption in 1965 marked the first time a national flag had been officially adopted to replace the Union Flag"
Wasn't it the Flag of South Africa that replace the Union Flag in 1928? Damzow (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably this was worded in the sense for Canada only, since there was adoptions before and after the Canadian flag was done. This needs to be reworded, but not sure how. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

According to one particular interpretation, the Maple leaf could be depicting the Holy Trinity, i.e. God as is usually understood in Christianity. See for instance the Andrei Rublev painting, which in depicted in the same shape as the maple leaf. There are various traditional symbols such as the fleurs-de-lis, the shamrock and the Christmas tree that have the same basic shape and that have historically been used to represent the Holy Trinity in art and symbol. ADM (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that when Members of Parliament chose the maple leaf flag they did so because of this alleged relationship? Or did they chose the maple leaf because it is common throughout many parts of Canada and has always been associated with Canada? Ground Zero | t 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's common in all parts of Canada. When I meet people from the West, the North or the Far East, they tell me that maple trees are not all that common in their respective provinces or territories. I think the symbol originates from 19th century Quebec, when it was used during the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parades, and became associated by the quasi-religious regalia of those ceremonies. ADM (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The maple tree was one of the most predominate and useful trees of central Canada and especially Quebec and its leaf was chosen as a symbol to represent Canada by the Saint-Jean Baptiste society in its infancy and was waved by the populace during the visit of Edward VII in 1860. Its use as a national symbol spread and was used on flags, money, posters, arms; just as today almost anything that needed identifying as being Canadian you just added the maple leaf. I don't find any credible evidence that the holy trinity had anything to do with the initial choice of the leaf as a national symbol and it certainly had nothing to do with its choice as the primary element of the flag. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Christmas tree does not have the same "basic shape" as the maple leaf. Furthermore, anything with three branches or points can be used to represent any other thing with three branches or points in an artistic or symbolic representation, so you could say that the Star Wars Trilogy could represent the Holy Trinity. And the painting you cite has nothing to do with the Trinity maple leaves. Utter nonsense. --Makaristos (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The maple leaf was previously the Quebec national symbol, until it was replaced by the fleurs-de-lis. It happens that both symbols have the exact same shape and the same religious meaning, if you look up the history of the royal emblem of France, which clearly depicts the Trinity. See also the shamrock, Ireland's national symbol. Also, the generic term trinity is not the same thing as the artistic representation of the Trinity, this is a heresy called nominalism. ADM (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Maple Leaf as used on the flag of Canada does not stand for the Trinity. --Makaristos (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"For the nation's centennial celebrations in 1967,...

"... the Canadian government used the Canadian coat of arms (whose shield was used on the red ensign) on a red flag."

Can this be correct? Surely not. I was in primary school in 1967, where the centennial celebrations were urgently promoted, and never once saw the coat of arms on a red flag. The centennial flag had a stylised maple leaf consisting of eleven equilateral triangles representing the ten provinces and the territories. Its aesthetic was very 'sixties and while it was eminently suitable for the time and occasion, it is a good thing that the same committee that came up with it wasn't responsible for the national flag, which is hasn't dated in the slightest. And is elegant and spare, in contrast to the coat of arms, which is certainly very pretty, but just keeps getting more and more elaborate.Masalai (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the flag in question. I've never seen a real life example though. By the way, the other centennial flag you speak of is rather poorly re-drawn here and I'm certain was more common because, though I was only one year old then, I've seen it. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I never seen an actual photo of the flag, and I doubt that actual flag existed in real life. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it in real life flying at my private school in Ontario, so yes it exists, but no it isn't really that important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.229.2 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Add new section: Criticisms

I think a section should be added noting that many people are critical of the political reasons behind the adoption of the 1965 flag, given the political climate of the era, and the way in Canada's traditional love for its historic ties to the Commonwealth were dealt a significant blow. The leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition Michael Ignatieff even said the flag "looks like a beer label." There also exists a society to restore the Canadian Red Ensign. See: canadianredensign.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.197.129 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Maple leaf

the leaf is a sugar maple Acer saccharum leaf, is this not important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.207.120 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The article notes that the flag bears a maple leaf symbol. The leaf is a stylized symbol, not meant to be representative of any one type of maple. Our article on the maple leaf (as a symbol of Canada) notes that "the one chosen is a generic maple leaf representing the ten species of maple tree native to Canada." - Eron^Talk 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually to me the flag looks like 2 men shouting at each other! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.50.158 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I read in a flag book that some Canadians refer to the flag as Jack and Jacques because it looks like two men shouting at each other. I did find this source from an article on suite101 (unable to provide link as site has apparently been blacklisted as spam) "Since the adoption of the flag, some observers have pointed out that if the colours of the flag are inverted, the flag’s design reveals two faces in profile, arguing. These figures have been nicknamed Jack and Jacques, in allusion to Canada’s cultural and linguistic duality." Maybe this is worth a mention in the article with an adequate source? 96.248.139.183 (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=0bNwoG1MvToC&q=%22Jack+and+Jacques%22+flag&dq=%22Jack+and+Jacques%22+flag&hl=en&ei=yRQTTZjWIcOqlAfE9o3YCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA might be the book in question. However, page 103 of "I Stand For Canada" mentioned that while the 13 point leaf was stylized, it still resembled mostly to the sugar maple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Canada song by Freddy Grant (1965)

--Wendystation (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Young students learned to sing Freddy Grant's "Flag of Canada" (1965) at Cedar Hill School in Victoria BC back in 1965. Here's one of those students singing the song, 46 years later. Flag of Canada (sung by Wendy Station)

Missing template

{{Flags of North America}} is missing. --Pavel Q (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We got it, it is inside the Navigational box. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag not created by an "act of Parliament"

Technically, the flag was not created by an "act", and the Senate and the House of Commons did not vote on a "bill" in December 1964. Because of the precedent set by the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, which reserved to the sovereign the design of national coat of arms and flag, Parliament's powers still are not considered to include changing arms or flag. So the two houses of Parliament did not vote on a "bill" but on "resolutions", which asked the Queen to proclaim this design as the national flag. See the text of the proclamation, which says the proclamation is made on the advice of the Privy Council. It does mention the resolutions of the houses, but they were not legally binding. Politically binding, yes, but not legally. Indefatigable (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Watercolors are _gouache_ or _guache_, not _gauche_. Please someone fix this. It would be _gauche_ not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.251.153 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

flag of canada

why the canada choose the leaves for the designed of the canadiens flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.137.98 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

FA?

After a quick read through the article, I think that this article isn't a FA. Here's some points:

• The spelling is inconsistant mix of American and Canadian
• Bare URLs
• Link rot

~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please give some examples of words that are not spelled the Canadian way. I took a quick scan through and could not find any. Indefatigable (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed already. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus there is more information that has been found in the past few years, such as the creation of technical standards by the GCSB. As for the American spelling, that is my fault but I have no sure fire way on making sure everything is in Canadian English. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The automated peer reviewer does check, but is not complete. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

More like if there is a spellchecker I can use on Firefox or something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.10.151.125, 16 January 2012

Please correct name of the flag given in the infobox. The official name is the National Flag of Canada. Source: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/df7-eng.cfm

76.10.151.125 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue with the {{Infobox flag}}, which does not allow for words entered before the word "flag", only between "flag of" and the name of the entity. Thus, it can't be changed without using an entirely different infobox. Skier Dude (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed infobox and changed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.103.167.20, 13 May 2011

Please change the wait times listed for receiving a Peace Tower flag from 27 to 32 years, and from 19 to 20 years for the East/West Block flags. These dates have officially been changed by PWGSC, and are currently listed on the Parliament Hill website. http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/drp-flg-eng.html

198.103.167.20 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done (diff), and thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia reliable.  Hazard-SJ  ±  04:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Related to the above, the webpage that is cited as a source for these numbers has changed. The new URL is http://www.collineduparlement-parliamenthill.gc.ca/batir-building/centre/tour-tower/drp-flg-eng.html

I've set answered=no for the link update only - the numbers are still valid. 76.10.151.125 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012 -- flying it upside-down

Can someone add a section about flying the flag upside-down, whether it represents a distress signal, and particularly the time that a U.S. Army unit inadvertently carried it upside-down during the opening ceremonies of a World Series game in Montreal?

Hgrosser (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, this template is for making specific requests for changes which protection prevents you from making yourself--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

Freddy Grant's "Flag of Canada" song was written in (1965) The Canadian Encyclopedia

The song was taught at Cedar Hill School in Victoria, BC. Visit Flag of Canada to hear the song being sung recently by one of the students.

Wendystation (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please restate your request in a 'please change X to Y' format. It isn't clear where in this article you could add information about that song. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RGB is missing!

hello,

the RGB colours are missing! How is this featured without mentioning the exact type of colours. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the official government source (Department of Canadian Heritage) doesn't list an RGB color in their specifications of colors. However, the Federal Identity Program does list the RGB colors at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/spec/T145-eng.asp. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous date

In the "History" section, I believe the following sentence should be changed and the reference to the Heritage Canada document removed: "The design was approved unanimously by the committee on October 29, 1964, and later passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons on December 15, 1964. The Senate added its approval two days later."

I was doing a research on the topic and I found in the House of Commons Journals that the House adopted the motion on December 14, not December 15 (House of Commons Journals, vol. CXI, no. 210, p. 1000-1003). I'm also in contact with Heritage Canada for clarifications and hopefully getting that part of their website corrected.--RXcanadensis (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind people, further research demonstrated that although the vote was still on the December 14 sitting, it happened after midnight, thus making it December 15.--RXcanadensis (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Unity Flag

This section seems like a plug for a really minor movement. Should it be removed? Knoper (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been going on for years, received attention from the press and also was featured in both books by Archbold. I would make it a minor note in the article, but I would not remove it outright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Relatively minor it is, I've only seen it in actual use once, and that was during Canada day on Parliament Hill (someone was waving it about), although that doesn't diminish the fact that it is used. trackratte (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of "Father of Canadian Flag" and reference to C.P. Champion's book

The paragraph deleted by Miesianiacal in the "Legacy" section of the Flag of Canada article is a discussion of conflicting interpretations, not editorializing. As a reliable published source on the topic, written by a respected scholar and published by a leading university press, C.P. Champion's The Strange Demise of British Canada is indeed a relevant source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzdavid (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It was full of editorialising and sourced to an editorial. It's been trimmed accordingly.

The Strange Demise of British Canada isn't a source used for many parts of this article, so, it was put in the wrong place. It's been moved to a more proper location, but needs a page number. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The section seems to me to be adding a controversy that is not really there.-- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the preceding sections do a good job in outlining the facts (ie the roles that Matheson, Stanley, and Pearson played), without getting into editorialising over who deserves to be the one and only true 'father of the flag'. trackratte (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

History is much more than simply "the facts". On a much more sophisticated level, it is the interpretation of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzdavid (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is a current "controversy" regarding this issue. Brockville, Ontario, is campaigning to have that community officially recognized as the "Birthplace of the Canadian Flag" and is claiming Matheson as the "Father of the Canadian Flag". Both assertions run counter to the historical facts and documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzdavid (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I live in Brockcille - for years our welcome board has said "Birthplace of the Canadian Flag". There is a motion in the House of Commons that would recognizes Brockville as the "birthplace of the Canadian flag". Not to bring up a debate on if Matheson or Stanley was more involved. The term "Father of the Canadian Flag" was officially bestowed on Stanley in 1995 by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and is not what Brockville is trying to have done for Matheson. That said it is the norm to refer to Matheson as one of the father(s) of the Canadian flag.-- Moxy (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no consensus for this - get consensus first"? This section describes an ongoing situation of controversy about commemoration of the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzdavid (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is based on objective, verifiable facts. Although you live in Brockville, you don't seem to be aware of the stated intentions of the local committee. See also committee chair Robert Harper's statements in the press and on radio. The committee's goals have been opposed by letters to the Brockville newspaper on 15 May 2013 and on 17 May 2013. The fact that there is a motion in the House of Commons and a private member's bill in the Ontario Legislature does not change the historical facts. Can you please elaborate on why you object to acknowleding this ongoing controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzdavid (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why the info regarding the 'father of the Canadian flag' bit can't be worked in somewhere, so long as it's kept to a reasonable length and is in the right location. The Brockville stuff seems trivial and the designation of this as a "controversy" is pure POV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Labrador

A fact tag has been added to the claim that the Flag of Labrador is considered a national flag. There may be a push by some to recognize and use this unofficial flag, see this for example (and I make no claims about the reliability of this source) but are there any reliable sources that show that Labrador can be considered a distinct nation? It's certainly not a distinct nation because of linguistics or cultural heritage, as are the other distinct nations listed in the article. So, what is the basis of the claim? I don't think geographic separation is enough, or Canada would have more distinct nations that the US has states. Meters (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Close thread. No sources added and no comments here. Statement removed from article by tagger (and I agree with that). Meters (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Article on flag suggestions from the 60s

[7] I was going to stick it in the external links section, but maybe we could incorporate it more meaningfully? Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it's content already covered in the article where it mentions the public submissions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallery of similar flags

An IP and a named user have been attempting to add a gallery of "similar " flags [8]. Apart from the issue of similarity being nothing but editors' opinions (red with a white centre? white with a red centre? only vertical stripes? horizontal stripes too? only if it has an emblem in the centre? etc.) I don't see it as adding anything particularly useful to the article. Mintytingy's edit summary claims that this section has been in this article for years and that per WP:BRD we need consensus to remove it, but I saw no such section when I looked. I took a random sample of the article over the last 5 years and none of the versions I looked at had a section on "similar flags." If I missed it please point it out to me. The section has been removed by two different editors now, and it appears that without consensus to add it it should stay out. Meters (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Unless some else wants to support this I guess this is moot, as Mintytingy was just blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, they shouldn't be added. It is all POV. That's why I tried to remove them on Flag of the United States but a user claims that "they've been there for years"... Most flag articles don't have them. It should stay consistent. They really shouldn't be included as again it is all just POV. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Canada or Canadian Flag

Does anyone have any insight into why this article is titled "Flag of Canada"? It seems to me that the "Canadian Flag" is the overwhelming common usage, both in everyday discussion, as well as in media reports. trackratte (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We had a talk of this nature long ago ...not sure where...but Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology had some convention where we use.... "flags of countries" All recognized territory flags vs 'flag of country" = The National Flag...that said "Canadian Flag" seem right me. -- Moxy (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dang, that's my recommendation. Change the article title to Canadian Flag'. I thought about Flags of Canada? but that could arguable include all the provincial & territorial flags, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be tricky. Most sovereign state flag articles are titled as Flag of X. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lets ask User:SimonP (Simon Pulsifer) ..longest Canadian editor here...see if he knows anything about the old talk....hes the one that made the original redirect. -- Moxy (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no memories of of why, likely it was just the way other countries have it. - SimonP (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. It seems to me that the article titles policy would take precedence over a precedent essay. Especially as we all know "because others do it that way" is not necessarily a reason, as other stuff exists. Does anyone else see a reason not to use the common name? Or perhaps not think that the Canadian Flag is not the common name? trackratte (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the common name that we usually use to address the flag is "Canadian flag", however looking at Gallery of sovereign state flags, all the countries use how the article is titled currently, that is "Flag of X Country". Since that is the case, Canada shouldn't stray from how it's conventionally done with respect to the other "Flag of X Country" titles. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe all other countries' common name for their flag is "Flag of X Country". Although the "Flag of the United States" is undoubtedly commonly referred to as the "American flag". Second, what other pages do is not a reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME for article names. And policies outweigh essays. Lastly, the Canadian Flag within the Gallery of sovereign state flags can still say "Flag of Canada" to suit the article style, and a reader clicking the link would simply be redirected. trackratte (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Vas, what other pages do is not a reason to blindly follow regardless of what makes sense.

For example, the Canadian Naval Ensign uses the same flag template, but says "Canadian Naval Ensign" instead of "Canada", even though it is the "national flag when used at sea". Another is the Royal Standard of Canada, which is a state flag and represents Canada (in the same way as the Canadian Coat of Arms, as it is a banner of the Royal Arms of Canada).

Subsequently, there are two Canadian national flags and one Canadian state flag that are in current use to symbolise Canada. Nevermind the historic national flags (including the ensigns) which were in use. To have all of them simply say "Canada" is problematic and confusing. To say that this Canadian Flag is the only one to represent Canada is false. trackratte (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you show evidence that the current title has been "problematic and confusing" to readers? Otherwise, this seems to be a case of "I don't like it". The precedent for using "Flag of X country" is well established, and I don't see a case for changing it on one article because of one user's concern for hypothetical confusion. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bil, thanks for jumping in. To answer your first question: not any more than you can poll every single Wiki reader that's read all those pages. The point is there's more than one "Canada" flag. This is a point about accuracy, which I'm obviously not a fan of inaccurate labelling within an encyclopedia, and neither are you I'm sure. Your accusation of WP:JDL is completely off-side, and is largely confined to emotional arguments not based on logic and without any substantiation beyond personal preference. My point is not based in emotion, but in the fact that there is more than one "Canada" flag, so the accurate label would be its actual name, the National Flag of Canada. The "other" national flag, the ensign, uses its proper name in the Flag infobox as well, instead of just "Canada". The state flag doesn't have a flag infobox at all, but if it did it should use its proper name as well. Applying the same logic to all three would have all three with the infobox name of simply "Canada". Which is fine I suppose, if that's what most editors thinks makes the best sense. trackratte (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence I had in mind would have been a history of this being a problem here on the talk page and/or in the article's edit history. The absence of that is telling. as usually there's a record of confusion somewhere in the article or talk page. As to JDL, it comes across that way, especially as this is the only article you apparently want to change. "Canadian flag" vs. "Flag of Canada" has the appearance of semantics. Yes, accuracy is important, but not to the point of being silly, which is how this comes across to me. Granted, I'm not Canadian, so it's not a personal issue to me. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you're talking about two separate issues at once. If you wish to simply accuse me of things instead of any productive reasons beyond it having "the appearance of semantics" (which isn't a reason) that's fine too. trackratte (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not opposed either way... I too think National Flag of Canada makes more sense, but if it's not what is done on the other pages that are about the same subject matter as the other countries, it shouldn't stray. It all should be uniform. I'm not here to go to the highest of places to ask for a huge discussion about a small thing. I am here to make things consistent between pages. One or the other isn't necessarily right or wrong, it's always a matter of personal preference. But if the convention is just to use the country name, and that's how it's been for a long while, then that's how it should be and that's how its should stay unless proven otherwise by a wide discussion of some sort. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a big issue by any means, merely something I noticed today, and didn't seem to jive. However, I still do not see any policy stating that we must stick to what other pages do, particularly as Canada in this case, is not the same as every other country. Or maybe it is I don't know. Regardless, it seems to me to have simply "Canada" at odds in the sense that there are actually multiple flags, so to label it as "Canada" is not entirely accurate. Obviously, if everyone thinks it should be called "Canada" then fine I suppose, although it's always better to have reasons on why not to do things beyond 'that's what other pages do', or 'it seems like semantics to me', etc. I'm sure you understand. trackratte (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is confusing having just "Canada" at the top of the infobox. It also presents some inaccurate implications, such as "Canada" being the name of the flag or the flag and the state being one and the same. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, pretty sure it's my second revert, other than my self revert (the one on the IP was a different matter), but okay. Wikipedia is about consistency. If every single other "Flag of x country" article has their infobox name as just the country name then so be it. If you would rather have it as national flag of x, then it should be uniform across all articles. Why should Canada be an outlier? I am not saying one is right over the other, but if that's how it's been, again, we shouldn't stray. Does that mean it they should all be changed? Maybe. But as it is without a wide discussion, it should be like the rest. Consistency. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE folks. Leave the infobox as it was & then work it out 'here'. I doubt any of you wish to end up blocked over this issue. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia isn't really about consistency. It's something to aim for, but it isn't necessary. Hence, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:IAR exist. If just the country name works elsewhere, great (though, I'd argue against doing so in those articles, as well, if asked). But, I think trackratte and myself have given some pretty valid reasons why "Canada" isn't fitting for the infobox on this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The documentation for the infobox at Template:Infobox flag states that the name field is for the name of the "entity". In this case, that's Canada, so "Canada" should go in the name field. Ignoring infobox documentation will lead to confusion by editors who follow the documentation. Perhaps the field should be relabled, or the documentation changed, but that should be discussed on the infobox talk page. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is there is more than one flag that represents this "entity". So we are faced with three or more different flags all representing the generic "entity" of Canada, but each in a different role. If the FIAV codes were reinstated it may help to clear things up a bit, as the state flag, national flag, and national flag (ensign) would be differentiated by role within the infobox. For example, it could say Canada in the head, and then "national flag", "state flag", etc. Currently the "use" section is doesn't seem accurate, or a flag can be used in a variety of way. Second, the name parametre just says the Maple Leaf, which isn't the name of the flag. Third, none of this really addresses the core oddity that the box is titled "Canada" instead of Canadian Flag, because nowhere does the template say "this is a template about flags" or something similar. trackratte (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about consistency just as much as it is about clarity and accuracy and is very necessary. Without consistency, how would things be clear? It all stems from one another. As I said before, I am not against either of the names and have said I would rather National flag of x country, however I would rather for consistency more, and if that means just having the country name, then that's how it is. Again, should they all be changed? I think they should, because I do agree it can be confusing for just the country name, however if things are not consistent between similar pages, things can go wrong, and actually be less clear. This is why consistency is important. I would go around to the other articles and change them to National flag of x, but I'd for sure get some users reverting that. There needs to be a bigger discussion about this because it is important to have the title of the infobox uniform between pages. Something like that is usually the same throughout similar articles. There is a difference between that otherstuff article and consistency between pages; a fine line. I am all for for either, as long as there should be consistency to achieve clarity. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Trackratte, I added "Canadian flag" under names because I agree with you about that, and think we can all agree that it is used undoubtedly like the American flag. Also, it does say in the infobox template in the "uses" part that it is a national flag. Also, this is not just used at the national level, it is also used at provincial level, for example Flag of Ontario, city level, Flag of Toronto, state level Flag of California, etc etc. The name in the infobox seems to be consistently like this, and until otherwise proven a change through a wide discussion it should stay. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I also find it odd how the template says "nickname" but what is displayed is "name", the former being unofficial and the later seeming official. I think this entire discussion could be avoided if the template was a little clearer, chief of which saying the word "flag" as part of the template, to make it clear it's not talking about the "entity" itself, which is what it is currently doing. Ie: This article is not about Canada, so why does the template just say Canada? May seem nitty to some, but there are (or were) at least three incongruities with the infobox on this page which I only noticed in passing today. trackratte (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I also find it odd how the template says nickname... at least to the readers it just displays "name" in the infobox. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Dont care about the fight..nor do I have a position ...but best not to link to template documentation in a hidden note.. not policies or a guideline..nor does it even have a recommendation on this point... say "Name of entity" this will lead most to believe its the name of the flag,,,not country it represents .....so best not to make others think this documentation is anything more then an essay that is conflicting WP:CONLIMITED. Thank you -- Moxy (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

At least part of the problem does seem to lie in the template itself. It's obvious to me the "Name" field would hold the name of the flag, not the nation the flag is meant to represent. The template documentation then says the "Name" field should show the "name of entity", which is vague and therefore doesn't contradict the conclusion the "Name" field should have in it the name of the flag. Then the "Nickname" field shows in the infobox in article space as "Name"...

I think the template itself needs to be reconsidered. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Maybe to bring the discussion over there? trackratte (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened at Template talk:Infobox flag#Propose clarification of "entity", --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070331.weensign31/BNStory/VimyRidge/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Canada. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/df11-eng.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Canada. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090325162006/http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf to http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Canada. 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/20120728214522/http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/pt-te.nsf/eng/00132.html to http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/pt-te.nsf/eng/00132.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Union Flag"???

Re the sentence, "In 1964, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson formed a committee to resolve the ongoing issue of the lack of an official Canadian flag, sparking a serious debate about a flag change to replace the Union Flag," few Canadians would know what the phrase "Union Flag" means. It is called the "Union Jack" in Canada, never the "Union Flag". Before the maple leaf flag was invented, most Canadians considered the Union Jack to be the flag of both the UK and the British Commonwealth, while the Canadian Ensign (a red flag with a small Union Jack in the upper left corner, and a crest in the middle) was considered the Canadian flag. Canadian ships flew the Canadian Ensign, not the Union Jack. In public places, such as schools, both flags (the Union Jack and the Canadian Ensign) were displayed together.77Mike77 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Union Flag and Union Jack are interchangeable terms and mean the same thing. There are those who argue that it is only a "Jack" when flown from a ship, but in widespread usage it is often referred to as a Jack on land or sea. Pearson used the term "Union Flag" when he made his call for a national flag that initiated Great Canadian Flag Debate. Since then in Canada it is officially known as the "Royal Union Flag", though "Union Jack" remains in widespread use. As for the Red Ensign, it was official only for merchant shipping and military use; and though widely used elsewhere it was never officially declared to be Canada's national flag. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever "official" names are inherited from history, virtually all Canadians call it the "Union Jack", and since it is never flown from a Canadian ship, the argument you mentioned does not apply. My point is that the vast majority of Canadians are (a) not historians, and (b) not as old as Lester Pearson would be if he were still alive, and that therefore the vast majority of Canadians reading this article would deem the author to be a kook for referring to the Union Jack as the "Union Flag", or, even worse, might not even guess what flag the author is talking about.77Mike77 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please provide some Reliable Sources to verify your above claims and then we can discuss it further. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly counter-intuitive to word an encyclopedia article around popular ignorance. Since 1965, the "Union Jack" has been named in Canada, by law, as the Royal Union Flag. If people commonly call it the Union Jack still, then that can be mentioned (with a supporting source). But, it shouldn't be called the Union Jack in this article, at least in reference to it post-1965, because that's not what it's properly called. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom It is called the Union Jack. The "Union Flag" is an alternate name. Popular usage defines the meanings of words, and it is ignorant to refer to popular usage as "ignorance". Regardless of what name some bureaucrat invented for the official archives, popular usage dictates that the flag is called the Union Jack in Canada.77Mike77 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Truth is not democratic. The name of something does not change just because "x" number of people think that is is or should be called something. The official name is "Royal Union Flag", and this is verified from the Canadian Government. Despite previous request, you have not provided any verifiable source to support your claims on the basis of popular usage. Please see the Wikipedia policies: WP:RS and WP:OR. Wikipedia is only concerned with verifiable facts from Reliable Sources. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's your source for popular Canadian usage: the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd Edition, 2004) and the Oxford Canadian Dictionary of Current English (2005) both list "Union Jack". Neither "Union Jack" entry mentions the "Royal Union Flag" or the "Royal Flag", and neither book has an entry under "Royal Union Flag" or the "Royal Flag". Clearly Canadian usage is Union Jack. Meters (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't even name articles based on official names (see WP:COMMONNAME, so I see no reason that we should not use the common name in this article. We should mention the official name, bu tuse the common name. Meters (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't prove popular Canadian usage. Nor does it disprove that in Canada the flag is called the Royal Union Flag.

It's also unhelpful to call the flag in the Canadian context the same thing as what the flag's called in the British context when they don't represent the same thing in the British and Canadian contexts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meters. It's obvious that the two other responders have claimed "ownership" of this article, and are dead-set against listening to reason, nor accepting that it needs improvement. I'm abandoning it now as yet another failed article.77Mike77 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:CABAL. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Canada. 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/20120225123851/http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2007-2/issue3/fe-flags.html to http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2007-2/issue3/fe-flags.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140805232457/http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/collineduparlement-parliamenthill/batir-building/centre/tour-tower/drp-flg-eng.html to http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/collineduparlement-parliamenthill/batir-building/centre/tour-tower/drp-flg-eng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Flag colours - Pantone?

A recent edit changed the colours of the flag, and then was reverted, with a message that this issue was previously discussed and the decision was to use Pantone. Where was the discussion about using Pantone? I've checked this talk page and the archive page and haven't been able to find it. Fangs! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I cant' find any previous mention of Pantone here. There was a mention of RGB standards. Possibly someone is confusing this, or a discussion on a different article. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a small discussion at Talk:Canada/Archive 24#Which flag should be used @Walter Görlitz: @Illegitimate Barrister:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to comment again, particularly since I reverted on the Canadians article with a vague comment, the Pantone version is the apparently the correct colour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

yup....:Description of the National Flag of Canada.--Moxy (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So what is it pantone or not according to the government site, I can't tell? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes...." PMS 485 (used for screens) in the Pantone colour specifier can be used when reproducing the flag".--Moxy (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it should be pantone. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's no other objections, the pantone will go up shortly. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on having both of them in the infobox like how User:EzekielT presented it? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Canada Flag

Possibly cognate with "Canada Goose," "Canada Lynx" and "Canada Jay" the adjectival form here is often simply 'Canada' and not the unwieldy, albeit technically correct 'Canadian.' Here in SW Ontario it is somewhat more common to refer to our national banner as a "Canada Flag" than as a "Canadian Flag." I am not proposing to rename the article, but this fact should be reflected in the header. — Muckapedia (talk) 20^e juin 2019 22h30 (−4h)

Do you have any sources using this name? the web page of the Government of Canada uses "Canadian Flag". --Thespündragon 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

1921-57 flag vs 1957-64 flag

Canadian Coat of Arms Shield with green/yellow maple leaves

Canadian Coat of Arms Shield with red/yellow maple leaves

The only difference between the 1921-57 flag and the 1957-64 flag is the harp. The difference is so tiny that I doubt anyone would take notice. Is this particular change covered by a valid source. Without deeper knowledge, I would say that it just might be two different manufacturers versions of the harp, and nothing else. Reference to a good source would be preferable. Boeing720 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The main difference between the two versions of the flag isn't the harp. It's the colour of the three maple leaves at the bottom of the shield. They were rendered as green from 1921 to 1957, but then were changed to red from 1957 onwards. The two versions should be kept to show that difference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Concur with keeping both versions. I don't object to a good source that might explain why the changes were made, but that there were changes doesn't need to be sourced. - BilCat (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the change is that the 1921 blazon for the coat of arms is ambiguous as to the colour of the maple leaves. It says that they are to be "proper", which in heraldry-speak means natural colours. The difficulty is that there are three different natural colours for maple leaves in Canada. They are all green in summer. Some species turn golden in the fall. The sugar maple turns bright red in the fall. From 1921 to 1957, the federal government depicted the shield with green maple leaves, but in 1957 switched to red, because the national colours are red and white. It's explained in Matheson's book on the development of the flag. I've got a copy somewhere. Will hunt it out and add a citation. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see an explanation at Canadian Red Ensign either, though I might have missed. If it's not there, a more comprehensive explanation should probably go there, with a brief one here. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Red Ensign page, in the "History" section, but without a citation. Once I find Matheson, I'll add it there as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen it there before, but couldn't find it this time. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As of the images in this article - the only difference between the 1921-57 and 1957-64 is the harp inside the shield. There is no visible difference related to the red colour. Perhaps one of them is poorly illustrated ? Boeing720 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference shows up on my computer display. The 1921-57 is green, the 1957 to 1965 is red. You may need to turn up the size of the display to see it? I have mine up high to avoid eye-strain. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The 1921-57 maple leafs are clearly green on my screen also, but both flags can be opened as separate files to view them at higher resolutions. Is this perhaps a red-green color blindness issue? - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added photos of the shields, which clearly shows the green and red leaves at the bottom third of each shield. I hope this helps. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Forgot to ping. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear me ! When I first red "green" I began wonder if I've gone colour blind. Now I see what you mean. There is indeed tho differencies, the harp and the colour of the maple leafs. But both inside the shield. Are we certain this is official (and not just a flag manufacturer matter), then all is fine with me. I trust you. Thanks - both of you. Boeing720 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720: No worries, and you're welcome. I can understand how you misunderstood, and that's why I added the photos for clarification. I wish I could have found the shield photos earlier, as it took some searching to locate them. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@BilCat:I suppose I noticed the harp and simply assumed that this was the only difference. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720 and BilCat: Right, it took me almost a year to find my copy of Matheson, but finally added the explanation for the difference between the pre–1957 and the post–1957 ensigns. I keep reminding myself: There is no deadline. 😊 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flag of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bishop's College School

Hi! Bishop's College School in Quebec founded in 1836 is actually the first institution that flew this flag, beating the parliament hill for few hours. The flag they flew was donated by a WWII Veteran Okill Stuart. I am an alumni of BCS and I did have a sense of this piece of history. The flag is kept at BCS Chapel today.

Okill Stuart is a D-Day Landing Veteram and a recipient of the Queen Jubliee Medal. He donated the second hand-made flag to the school in 1865. Yet, there are no accurate database sources of this history as Stuart has died in 2020 and it is hard to find BCS alumunus and make it an article or somewhat resources as I am not a memeber of the institution anymore. The School just found again this flag from the archives in the 2010s.

I tried to make an edit but was quickly reverted as yearbook and the school websites are not seemed as "reliable", can any one help with the issue? Perhaps by research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eehdeidhied (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)--Eehdeidhied (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexillological symbol

We have a bit of back-and-forth on what symbol the infobox should have. The two contenders are ("National flag") and ("National flag, civil and state ensign"). I think it's pretty clear that the second one is correct. The first one suggests that there is a different ensign used on civilian ships and non-military government ships, which is not so. Indefatigable (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no dissent, I'll go ahead and change it to ("National flag, civil and state ensign"). Indefatigable (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@OMGShay 92:, I see you have reverted the change (accompanied by a personal attack on my talk page) even though I invited discussion here. Please explain your reasoning here, and let's have a good-faith discussion. 18:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion, I'll change it back to . 20:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 14:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Flag of Canada → Canadian flag – The national flag of the Dominion of Canada is most commonly referred to as the "Canadian flag". Since the late 1800s, There has not been a point in the corpus of ngrams, where "Flag of the Canada" has been more frequently used than "Canadian flag". The WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and concision come to mind here: the natural title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English and also is the one that people are most likely to search for, while the concise title is the one that is no longer than necessary to uniquely identify the article's subject. Since "Canadian flag" is the term used most frequently to refer to the article subject and is one word shorter than the current title, it has advantages over the current title with respect to those criteria. With respect to the criteria of precision and recognizability, the current name holds no advantage over the proposed name. As such, I request that this article be moved to Canadian Flag. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the criterion of consistency, however, the current title is most appropriate: of the entries at Category:National flags, the vast majority follow the "Flag of X" model. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: If we go by ngrams, 'country' flag will be greater than Flag of 'country' in nearly all cases. (1, 2, 3, 4). But almost all flags in Category:National flags use this format, and it would not be prudent to change everything solely on the basis of ngrams. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If the WP:COMMONNAME of flags is going to be country-name in nearly all cases, then isn't that just a case to rename all the national flags to match that common name? — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of work and change to fix something that isn't broken. Super Ψ Dro 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose breaks WP:CONSISTENT. If we moved all flag articles to "demonym flag", we would find a lot of problematic articles. For example, how should we title Flag of Los Altos? Or Flag of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha? Super Ψ Dro 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose to be WP:CONSISTENT with other flag articles. As Super Dro discusses above, demonyms aren't always obvious or natural, so retaining the "Flag of X" structure is ideal for recognizability. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE (very, very strongly). This term already redirects here. The Union Jack is a UNIQUE EXCEPTION due to the fact that the WP:COMMONNAME isn't "Flag of X" or "X flag", but instead it's referred to by the name "Union Jack" the VAST MAJORITY of the time. (It's different than people calling the flag of India "the Indian flag".) This move would have problematic consequences and would open up a gigantic can-of-worms (...where would it stop? what about territories and states? what about places with less-common demonyms, or controversial ones?). If we move this, we'll be inundated with unhelpful move requests that will only make flag pages harder to find. (Based on the already-formed consensus against this, should this be speedily, uncontroversially WP:SNOW-closed?) Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'll add my oppose, for the same reasons given above. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translate entirely from French to English

Honestly, after looking at the Wikipedia page of the Flag of Canada in English and the one in Français, it looks like the French version is superior to the English version. Do you want the entire page translated, or not? Kxeon (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Superior in what sense. If you look at the actual written content in the French article, you will note that almost the entirety of the article (from the description section, other flags, protocol, and promotion of the flag section) is nearly identical to the English version... as the French version largely copies this article.

In fact, the only major difference in content is the History section, of which, the English history section is much more expansive and comprehensive than the French one. The only other major difference is the images they use in that article versus this one, and the addition of two tables in the description and the history section (which if we're going to be pedantic about what constituted a "national" flag, the table used in the French article's history section is just wrong). Leventio (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve read both. Don’t see how the French version is better, so no need for the proposed tag. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

They copied that from this version here... but that article now has mass accessibility problems...an example of what not to do. That said not sure French Wikipedia has the same MOS as we do or Good article review as we do. Moxy- 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)