Talk:Flag of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Flag of Canada 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 article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

To-do list for Flag of Canada:	edit · history · watch · refresh
needs some more references a bit more about the Government promotion of the flags (maybe a pic of the freebie items, like the lapel pins and tyvek flags) more about the regulations on how to use the flag ~~Perhaps get photos of the flag flying IRL~~Found on commons. Try and model it off of Flag of Australia or the other flag FA's expand the history section

Flag of Canada is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlag_of_Canada_f1fa.html"