Talk:Flag of Australia

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Heraldry and vexillology

	Flag of Australia is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
	This was a selected article on the Heraldry and Vexillology Portal for January 2008.

Australia Top‑importance

	Flag of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Incorrect RGB Values for the Australian Flag

Why is the image of the Australian Flag being shown with the British RGB values (1,33,105) and not the Australian RGB values (0,0,139) as recommended by the the Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers? (and correct digital values are actually shown on the wikipedia page!)

Would someone please remove the flag with the British blue values and use this flag that has the correct digital blue values as specified by the Australian Government. This is an image with the correct colours but it is not being used.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Australia_(converted).svg#/media/File:Flag_of_Australia.svg

Nextstep99 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good on ya, mate, for being so observant! This is the kind of esoteric editing that makes me feel honoured to be around here. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of image addition

The first Union Jack, seen in Sydney

My edit to include an image of the first Union Flag as exists near Circular Quay (representing the first flag used in Australia) was reverted by BilCat who gave the reason that "the flags can barely be seen or distinguished". I subsequently reinstated the edit and amended the caption, justifying it by arguing:

the focus of the image is on the flag in the foreground i.e. the first Union Jack. This monument represents the first flag used in Australia, in the area in which it was first raised and therefore has significance pertaining to the topic. Regarding your statement that it can barely be seen, this is a monument largely flanked by buildings on every side preventing wind

This reinstatement was again reverted by BilCat who conferred that "per WP:BRD, it's up to you to build a consensus" here. Though I do not see anything "bold" about the initial edit, I accept BilCat's criticism that the flag is somewhat obscured, but it remains clearly distinguishable regardless. Any feedback is welcome. In the event that responses are absent, I will most likely reinstate the image myself. I may try to take another picture of it, but I doubt it would be much different. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The "bold" in WP:BRD is in reference to WP:BE BOLD, which encourages editors to make constructive edits without requiring them to discuss it first. BRD then applies if the edit is reverted.

To be clear, my problem is that this is an article about the flag, so photos should actually show a recognizable flag. It's barely recognizable as the First Union Jack, and other images are available of the flag design to show it, if that's desirable here. Also, there is nothing visible in the photo as a monument, so the reader, myself included, has no idea what this monument consists of, other than a flagpole and flag. Is that all there is to it? Or is one of the buildings in the photo the monument? I hope you understand my objections. I'd strongly recommend not adding the photo back into the article without a clear consensus to do so. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with BilCat. That photo is quite useless. Even with some explanation here, I cannot see what it's allegedly showing me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair. Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)