This is an archive of past discussions about Nordic cross flag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am not sure if this flag is really a Nordic Cross flag. It really depends on how you interpret it, and of course what the "designer" wanted it to mean. It would be nice to find out more about the meaning and origin of this flag. According to an entry on the Flags of the World page it is supposed to be a Nordic Cross. Thats why I added it Inge19:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I realise I have added some questionable flags here. I am especially thinking of Lewis and Melbourne. When I started the article I only planned to have official flags, but more flags creapt in and I decided to add all the ones I could find already on Wiki. So the only criteria to get in the article should be that the flag has to meet the core definition of a Nordic cross flag. But I am certainly open to removing someInge23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The flags in this article may or may not have official status, but the information about being Nordic cross flags should at least be verified before inclusion, preferably by official sources. With respect to sources, it seems like Flags of the World uncritically displays flags and information about flags that its contributors themselves classify as dubious, so I think we should be careful with citing FOTW or linking to them under "External links" in flag articles. --Eddi(Talk)00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The big problem is that there is generally no official information about unofficial flags. Official agencies tend to pretend they don't exist. But like the flag of Shetland some of them suddenly become official.Inge00:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The Union Jack
What about the Union Jack, and related flags? They sure contain a cross, anyway, and I guess they're somehow related to the scandinavian cross. Maybe deserves a mention on the page? 213.112.14.15809:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's an analogous Nordic Cross flag family tree.
This is what the Union Jack would look like if it were a Nordic Cross flag.
I think St. George's cross should be mentioned. At least as a similar design, but probably not related. It would at least clear up things for Scandinavians who thinks the flag of england has a nordic design. carewolf 13:45 28 January 2007
This flag was interesting. I emediately thought it was strange to have the Swedish flag used like this. Does anyone know if Wilmington has sought permission to do this? National flags are after all protected by all countries. Inge22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The use of the Swedish flag is because of the original Swedish settlers of Wilmington/Ft. Christina. I am not aware of any treaty that requires a municipality to get permission from a country to use a similar flag design. Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The United States are obliged to protect for example the Swedish flag from being misused. The exact terms for this around the world vary. In some countries nothing will happen if you desecrate a foreign nations flag and in others you might go to jail. In some countries it is a matter of law and others a matter of good conduct. I reacted to the Wilmington flag because it is perseived as desecration of a flag if you draw or write on it without official permission(increasingly common among football supporters). So I thought it would at least be courteus of Wilmington to ask permission when they whant to essentially take the Swedish flag with writing and drawings on it as their official flag. And it would be really interesting if there had been some sort of correspondance on the matter. But as Eddi points out this flag is probably counted as a new and different flag from the Swedish one. Inge09:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The United States is not "obliged" to do any such thing, and is in fact explicitly prohibited from doing so by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.56.198 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what the source of your statement "national flags are protected by all countries" is. Nothing in United law, to my knowledge, prevents a citizen from using or even desecrating a flag (including, incidentally, the United States flag - see Flag_burning#The_United_States). Even if the flag of Wilmington was a Swedish flag defaced with some defamatory statement about Swedes, I see little that any government body could do to force a change. --Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OK,OK I wasn't acusing anyone of anything. I don't want Wilmington to apologise to Sweden or stop using the flag. I was just wondering out of curiosity. What was the basis of the flag and if there had been some sort of correspondance between Sweden and Wilmington. After all it is not to my knowledge common for regional American flags to be so much based on the flag of a different country. And it would at least have been polite of them. Inge20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The first part of your post was very interesting. The last sentance might indicate I have given an impression that somehow something here needs defending :) I am not prosecuting anyone (I hope you don't think that). This is ment as an exercise to obtain information to quell my curiosity.Inge15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about collation, and my edit was more thematic than alphabetic. I would like to suggest that we in the top section list sovereign nations (D/F/I/N/S) before autonomous entities (F/Å), and in the section of flags without Nordic cross list the international Nordic Council first, then autonomous entities and similar (G/S), and other entities at the end. --Eddi (Talk) 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we should do it the proper way when we know what the proper way is :) . The Æ, Ø and Å have their fixed places in the alphabet. I believe we should try to educate people on the fact that these letters exist, are separate letters and have their own place in the alphabet. When we list Å under A we enforce a misconception. In addition it has been decided that the collation in categories are to be with these letters in their normal place at the end of the alphabet. Wikipedia should have all lists collated the same way. Variation will definately cause confusion. When categories automatically list Å last we should also do it here and in all other articles. This might be inconvenient for some people until they learn, but it will increase correct knowledge. Inge20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but my point is that this is the English Wikipedia, and its readers - whatever language they prefer - will most likely use the Latin alphabet accordingly, even if that means that it would be wrong if translated to another language (interwiki). There are many specific rules for languages that use the same alphabet (e.g. IJ, AA, Ñ, CH) concerning proper collation, but an international "audience" can hardly be expected to learn all these rules and exceptions when looking up a word in an encyclopedia. After all, the names of the countries themselves (in this case) are translated into English (Norway, not Norge/Noreg etc).
Most people will use the search function when looking up a word, but I see your point too. I disagree with the importance given to it compared to other arguments. As a general problem this should be resolved somewhere other than this particular talk page. Because of the category thing I have a feeling this has already been done. In this particular page your "problem" isn't really that big because people looking for Åland will find it in approx. the same amount of time whether it is listed first or last in the section. I like the idea of ordering the flags according to degree of sovereingty (etc) first and then alphabetically. The flags were ordered similarily earlier I think. If wee agree to do that, it will improve the article and we have solved our alphabet dispute for now :)Inge21:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I posted this because I thought it would be good manners to explain my reverts, since it's the second time now. I'm not too familiar with how categories are sorted. I just have a passion for flags. :) The "problem" would certainly be many times greater if you are abroad trying to look up a person in a foreign phonebook and are unable to find that name because of illogical local collation conventions. //Big Adamsky • BA's talk page22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not as passionate about this particular question as the lenght of this debate might indicate:) Categories are automatically sorted with Æ,Ø,Å after Z. That makes it part of the programming and the reason I think this issue has been resolved by others. I think the issue of people looking for things on long lists could easily be fixed by listing on both places or by placing For "listings" beginning with Å see end of list. For our small list of flags the order of which they are placed really doesn't matter too much. It's "cosmetic". As the three of us seem to agree to place the Faroes and Åland last because they are dependent areas I assume it is OK for me to do so.?Inge16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I knooowwww, me too. And as already stated, the only reason why I started this thread was to explain the reasoning behind those two edits of mine. And since you guys replied I felt compelled to keep debating back and forth for a while. It is quite plausible that this matter has already been settled in the categories and that this example should be followed in lists and galleries by default. And as you said, this debacle has only minimal implications in this particular gallery article. (Btw, the UN lists Åland as if it began with a modified "A" or a "double-A" in its publications.) //Big Adamsky • BA's talk page16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Speaking of ordering flags in alphabetic order, have you seen this edit?
Yes I have seen it. It's good enough for me:). I feel done with this collation thing. Right now I am searching for some inspiration for new flag articles.Inge17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A good debate is never too long. :) As to sorting and categorisation, I don't think we can read policies out of the software itself. I believe the sorting made by the software is based on unicode entities, no explicit policy, and the placement of Å, Æ and Ø (in that order) is just nearly correct; more lucky than wise. (For some unexpected results see this sorting.) And there are lots of semi-wars going on between English speakers and other language speakers, especially over biographical articles, where some try to enforce English sorting of non-English letters, and others try to enforce the sorting of the respective languages. Anyway, most of the article sorting and list sorting that we do should be made explicit and not automatic. --Eddi (Talk) 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely the flag listed is just the Danish flag because Schleswig-Holstein was once Danish-controlled. Are there any explanations to prove that suggestion wrong?
Schleswig-Holstein was technically an independent duchy in personal union with the Danish crown. That is, they had the same monarch, but S-H was not considered part of Denmark proper, but rather a possession of the Danish crown. The situation is similar to the period of the first three Georges of Great Britain, who were both Kings of Great Britain and Electors (later Kings) of Hanover. Hanover was not part of Great Britain; rather it was a separate possession of the reigning English monarch. Thus the flag of S-H, while identical to the Danish flag, was the flag of a separate state and deserves its own place. Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Unofficial flags of Sweden
The problem with these unofficial flags is that they are not used, not regognized, and -- in some instances -- were newly created by some random people. The Scanian flag I don't doubt, but the others would need a reference of actually being in use. This affects
The "unofficial flag of Norrland" is often used up north (there is actually one right outside my window now!). It should be put back on the page a.s.a.p, I dont understand why it was taken away in the first place... /MJ
I'd appreciate a link to a site, anything, saying that these flags are used in a wider extent. This includes all Swedish flags (except the Flag of Skåne which is an official flag)... I have already once removed a set of "unofficial flags" of which several did not appear to be widespread at all. So please, add a reference, or I will remove the flags. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. -- Fred-Chess14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Policy
We should decide on what policy to follow here. Some of these flags are more notable than others. Some are oficial and some are not. Being official is not a good criteria for whether a flag should be included or not. I am for a quite liberal policy, where a flag should be included even if it is interesting only from a vexillological or design point of view. I don't think all of the flags have to be included, but as we see above some flags are unknown to some and notable to others. For one example the flag of Northern Norway is in my mind less notable than the flag of Norrland as the flag of Norrland has at least received som coincidental attention. But I think it is interesting that the two are so similar and I want to know more. Thats good enough for me. But the more duboius flags should be clearly marked so we don't give them notoriety ourselves. I am going to reinsert all the Swedish flags for now. Any views? Inge15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am going to remove some of the flags again, until there is provided references of the flags being in use. If there are commonly used, it shouldn't be hard. And if there is no such written references, then they shouldn't be in the article -- Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new concepts.
This goes for the flag of Norrland too. While the observations of MJ are most likely accurate, a written reference is still mandatory. / Fred-Chess22:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the flags of Western Norway and Northern Norway, as these seem to have been invented by a swedish flag book editor of dubious reputation, source. If possible, they should be deleted both from this article and the images deleted from Commons, or at least marked with a note underlining their questionable status. --Orland15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
These flags are highly questionable and were removed from the article page:
What is the reasoning behind Unofficial and Fictional flags in this article? How is the Flag of the Highlands of Scotland not fictional? Or the Vinland flag?
It is misleading for an encyclopedia to lump real and historical flags with these "unofficial" things. At the least, a reorganization is needed.
And an article titled Nordic Cross Flag and about flags bearing a Nordic cross could probably do without the Nordic flags without the Nordic cross section. It doesn't add anything, just adds confusion.
Nordisk Flaggsallskap
I removed the flag and the article, since I redirected the article about to group to the FIAV article. I removed the image, since it was under a non-commercial license, which has been disallowed since May of 2005. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have created an SVG version of this image at Image:Flag of Iceland - 1914 Proposal.svg, but neither the English nor Italian versions of this page appear to be able to thumbnail it correctly, though as you can see, it seems to be specific to this page, possibly because it uses gallery. I have left it unchanged. Could somebody more knowledgeable fix this on both wikis please? nandhp11:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Flag of Barra
Before people start removing the unofficial flag of Barra I would like to list a variety of sites that have dissussed the authenticity of this flag, and a number of sites that actually produce it for sale. The flag is indeed in use. The flag is discussed in the flags of the world website [1] Scott Hatton, on 6 October 2005 comments in a post on the Lewis flag discussion within the Western Isles community, "Barra and Lewis were generally deemed as authentic, South Uist slightly less so..." It should be noted that the flag of Barra is available from Mr Flag [2] and A A Flags [3].
NOTE: Large part of this article copied to Commons
I thought the style of this article would fit better on Commons, so I went ahead and copied the marjority of it to commons:Gallery of Nordic Cross flags. Now maybe the Wikipedia article could be restructured to look less like a gallery and more like an encylopedic article. --Himasaram06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no substantial evidence supporting the claim of the German "1871-1892" flag
This supposed "1871-1892" German flag which was posted here is spreading across wikipedia's flags pages. Almost all evidence available claims that Germany's flag from 1871-1918 was the black-white-red tricolour. This Nordic cross German flag has been added on the basis of Original Research, which is forbidden to be used on wikipedia articles. I am removing the information that states that this was the flag, and changing it to being that this flag is "claimed to be" the German flag from 1871-1892.--R-4120:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an analogous Nordic Cross flag family tree.
This is what the Union Jack would look like if it were a Nordic Cross flag.
Unofficial flag of Götaland
Unofficial flag of Gotland
Unoffical flag flown by Saint Eric's Cathedral, Stockholm
A proposed national
A proposed state
Before people start removing the unofficial flag of Barra I would like to list a variety of sites that have dissussed the authenticity of this flag, and a number of sites that actually produce it for sale. The flag is indeed in use. The flag is discussed in the flags of the world website [1] Scott Hatton, on 6 October 2005 comments in a post on the Lewis flag discussion within the Western Isles community, "Barra and Lewis were generally deemed as authentic, South Uist slightly less so..." It should be noted that the flag of Barra is available from Mr Flag [2] and A A Flags [3].
