Talk:Flag of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requests for Merge with Union Jack

Revert war

What's going on here? Please stop reverting ech other's edits and explain what you are doing.

Whatever you decide, you should not be making articles which are duplicates. Use a redirect if you think they should be the ame thing. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverting and re-reverting from Union Jack to Flag of the United Kingdom is pointless. Flag of the United Kingdom now contains the basic information on the flag as it is now, including and image. Other uses, history, nomenclature, the USA and Canada have nothing to do with the "Flag of the United Kingdom" so can be left at Union Jack. garryq 11:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Posssible Merge?

I was just looking around and I was wondering if there's a particular reason why this article hasn't been merged with Union Jack. They are both describing the same flag. -- KwaziMF 20:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi KwaziMF, everyone. I just wandered in because I was looking at various flags after the Flag of India was featured. I also noticed that there is the article Union Jack that seems to be the place were this article should be redirecting.

Does anyone have any objections to redirecting to Union Jack?--ShaunMacPherson 06:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There was already a discussion (and revert war) about this (see the two talk pages). Flag of the United Kingdom exists to conform with the various other national flag pages (which are all "Flag of ...."). This page indicates that the Union Jack is used as the national flag. Union Jack has detailed information, as well as usage of the flag that is unrelated to its use as the national flag of the UK. So, both pages have a purpose, and shouldn't be merged.--JW1805 16:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's Nuts at the moment - Let's merge Union Flag plus Flag of the United Kingdom

This is nuts! Why on earth are there two different articles about the Union Flag? Let's use the wiki standard and forget about nicknames or "official" names. Just simplify the topic, and put it all under the very sensible title: "Flag of the United Kingdom" - can't get more self-explanatory than that. Even leaving aside the naming issue, surely it is daft to have two duplicate articles?--Mais oui! 21:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Merge They are not duplicate articles. The original purpose of the Union Jack article was to include material about the flag that has nothing to do with its use as the Flag of the United Kingdom. For example, its use in the canton of the Australian flag. The fact that the flag has an existance greater than its use as a national flag, and the fact that it has its own name (that is the name most commonly used) is why there is a separate article. That was a compromise reached some time ago. --JW1805 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Megre as above. --PhilipO 23:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Carefully merge but leave separate and interlink: In other words, move all the information that befits the national flag (history, design, specifications, use as national symbol) into this article and leave only the information that befits its other uses (some history) in the other article. I also suggest redirecting Union Flag to this article, since the term "flag" favours its use as a national flag. Dystopos 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that would create great confusion, and would result in users adding duplicate information to one or the other article, since neither article would contain a full description of the flag. The way it is now, anything you would ever want to know about the flag is found in the Union Jack article. Really, the Flag of the United Kingdom article is unnecessary, but exists to conform to the other "Flag of ..." articles.--JW1805 23:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The "soft mege" proposal is a recipe for duplication and confusion. Why is the UK flag the only one on Wikipedia with two articles? and one of them uses the nickname! This is just plain daft. We need one article, using the standard wiki title "Flag of the... ". --Mais oui! 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's merge them

These articles have the same content - although one somewhat more than the other - so should be combined

Certainly. If Dannebrog and Flag of Denmark are at the same page so should these be. --164.36.38.240 10:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI: They aren't, any more. Dannebrog is a dab page.--Niels Ø (noe) 10:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Please discuss the merger at Union Jack. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge. This has been discussed many times. I think the current situation is best (see section below). --JW1805 (Talk) 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - the same topic. --Mais oui! 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why we have two articles

The whole point of keeping them separate were the following facts:

1. This flag has a name. It is universally called the "Union Jack", and officially the "Union Flag".
2. Every country has a "Flag of ..." article about their flag. So, according to many editors, there must be a Flag of the United Kingdom article. We have had edit wars about this in the past.
3. The Union Jack is the Flag of the United Kingdom. But it is also used in other countries (for example, in the flag of Australia). It is also an official flag of Canada. So, it doesn't make sense to have information of flag days in Canada where the Union Jack is flown in an article called Flag of the United Kingdom.

Because of these facts, a concensus was reached where there would be two articles:

1. Flag of the United Kingdom which has minimal information and only specific to the flag's use as the national flag of the current country called the United Kingdom.
2. Union Jack, which would have detailed information about historical use, use in other countries, and in other flags.

This is why the current situation exists, which I think is a good compromise. I think if one artice is merged into the other, we will just start a new cycle of edit wars which happened in the past. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of the flag

You may be right, Garry. However I think we should look at things a little more closely.

I can see some justification for having Flag of the United Kingdom and Union Jack as separate articles, if only because the Union Jack has had other uses in the past, such as the flag of Canada - though frankly they are very closely related to its use as the National Flag of the UK.

I do think this article has some problems. It starts with what is a controversial statement. Most British people reading this will stop at the first sentence and think "This is wrong - everyone knows the British flag is the Union Jack". They may not read any further. Non-British readers who take the first sentence literally will also be confused when they find that, for practical purposes, the Union Jack is the national flag of the UK. We should probably start with something like "The National Flag of the United Kingdom is effectively the Union Jack. However technically it has never been adopted as a national flag, and is in fact a royal banner".

More importantly it would be great if you could cite some references for the Union jack not being the national flag. You say, for example, that the Union Jack is a royal banner - but there is a Royal Standard, which is quite different from the Union Jack. Where are the references for the Union jack being a royal banner. Also we should think about the question "what makes a flag a national flag?". Does it have to be adopted by Parliament? If it's been used as the national flag for 300 years, when does it become actually the national flag? I'll bet that there has never been a parliamentary resolution saying that London is the capital of the UK, but does that mean it isn't? Old countries generally don't bother legislating things that are obvious. At the very least the article should emphasise that, for practical purposes, the Union Jack is the National Flag of the UK.

So I'm going to suggest a rewrite, plus citing some sources for the flag not being national. Does that sound reasonable? DJ Clayworth 13:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the Union Jack article I find: "it has become [the national flag] through usage" and "it was stated in Parliament that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag"" and "A more categorical statement was made by the Home Secretary in 1933, when he stated that "the Union Flag is the National Flag" ". Those seem pretty clear cut to me. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is not Union Jack, but in the frequent redirects the article kept getting. Hopefully this brief article will keep happy those who insist on the article being regularised with other national flags, and of course and help those who do not know the flags's name. The Union Jack article uses the most common name, as well as allowing for treatment of the flag, or the name, in history and outside the UK. Like so many aspects of the British Constitution the 1908un statement allows everything to muddle along, with fact and observance blurred. I hope the rewrite is clearer. --garryq 12:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where are the references for the Union jack being a royal banner

On the British monarchy's official website "The Union Flag was originally a royal flag (when the present design was made official in 1801, it was ordered to be flown on all the King's forts and castles, but not elsewhere)"

However it does start the article by saying "The Union Flag, or Union Jack, is the national flag of the United Kingdom"

and also "Although the Union Flag originated as a royal flag, it is now also flown by many people and organisations elsewhere in the United Kingdom by long established custom" --Cap 00:24, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

White border

When flown by civilians the flag should have a white border, but this is rarely seen now.

I've never heard of this; what evidence do we have for the assertion? Marnanel 20:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The flag is sometimes refered to as the Pilots' Jack and traces it creation back to 1823 when it was created as a signal flag, and never intended as a civil jack. A book explaining the Act was issued to British consuls in 1855. It states that the white bordered Union Jack is the flag to be hoisted for a pilot, although it was being used by that time as a jack and the use of the Red Ensign for merchant shipping was not established until 1864. There was some ambiguity as to the legality of using as a jack although the practise was not acted upon by the authorities, partly because of fears that it would rise to demands that the merchany fleet be allowed to use the Uion Jack, a practice that the Admirialty did not want for no more than abitrary reasons and a possible superiority complex

In 1970 the white-bordered Union Jack ceased to be the signal for a pilot, but references to it as national colours were not removed from the current Merchant Shipping Act. It thus became a flag that could legally be flown on a civil ship, as a jack if desired. This status was confirmed by the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993. From which prohibits the use of any distinctive national colours or those used or resembling flags or pendants on Her Majesty's Ships, except:

1. the red ensign
2. the Union flag with white border
3. any colours authorised or confirmed elsewhere in the same Act.

Hence it might well be considered a civil jack, but that only applies at sea. Dainamo 15:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed comment to enter above details in article Union Jack Dainamo 15:55, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

italics?

What's the reason for the italicized portion? Ought that not be italicized and "...often called the Union Jack..." removed? Mkilly 23:25, 3 September 2004 (UTC)

Upside down

"the flag is not symmetrical and has a right side and a wrong side up" It appears to have a 180-degree rotational symmetry. Not much danger of confusion with an actual physical flag, but paper or virtual representations it's significant. Joestynes 13:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the flag is flown upside down as a distress signal" really? Considering it's not used at sea, and considering how hard it would be to distinguish, I find this hard to believe. Joestynes 05:22, 4 April 2005 (UTC)

Butcher's Apron

While I agree the term is pejorative, I have come across references to this on the web. My simple point is attributing it to a certain group without an actual reference or verification is POV IMHO. If you can find a reference, by all means add it. --PhilipO 21:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Who the h*ll else in Ireland is going to call the "Union Flag" "The Butcher's Apron"??!! Anyone who is staunchly anti-British - that's who - i.e. an Irish nationalist/republican. My edit did also not attribute to an entire group - I said "some Irish Nationalists/Republicans". I live in Ireland and can say that the relationship towards the UK from the ROI is generally a very positive one. Only a very small number of staunch Republicans would use such terminology.

Not adding the terms "Irish Nationalist/Republican" subtly implies that this is a very common term in Ireland from the common person, when in reality this is far from the truth. It seems to me that the intention of the original author (Lapsed Pacifist) was to spread as much British-hating Irish Republican propaganda as possible (which is clear if you study this author's edit history).

And yes, I found references to this on the web - almost all in bulletin boards/forums from people holding strong Irish Republican views. Another most most notable site where the terms occurs frequently is An Phoblacht Republican news - well known as the voice of the Provisional IRA. To say that I must prove this is quite daft.

217.137.160.31 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what you say. In reality I don't think the statement adds anything, and actually detracts from the article - it is quite perjorative and this article isn't the place for an-anti flag statement. I would suggest removing the statement in its entirety. --PhilipO 22:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad you say you're agreeing now. Well, read my new edit (maybe I made it a bit too strong), and if you still don't like it, then delete the whole lot. 217.137.160.31 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think is is valid to have this information, since some people do use this term. But, it should go on the Union Jack page, which has detailed information about the flag. Flag of the United Kingdom is just a bare-bones article that just says that the Flag of the UK is the Union Jack.--JW1805 04:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's pertinent because much of Ireland is still in the United Kingdom. If you think the article lacks depth, add to it.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm just saying that detailed info should be put on the Union Jack page. This page (Flag of the United Kingdom) really just exists to conform with the other Wikipedia pages on the flages of various nations. This makes sense (and is the compromise born of many past revert wars). --JW1805 04:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article can't be expanded. If it's to remain at this size it would be better to make it a redirect.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This has already been discussed (see above). There was a length revert war and a truce on this very issue.--JW1805 05:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term is much more prevalent in the part of Ireland still under British jurisdiction than in the Republic, which does'nt seem to have been taken into account in the exchanges above.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LP - all the info for the flag (including your prejorative statement and alternate names)has been moved to Union Jack. Please stop your campaign of trying to spread your anti-British propaganda to every page possible. Jonto

The name is pejorative. The statement is not.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - replace "statement" with "name" in my comment - makes no difference to my point. The bulk of info in in Union Jack Jonto

There's no good reason not to have it here as well, especially as some of Ireland is still in the United Kingdom.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Your argument makes no sense. Detailed info goes on Union Jack. A knickname used by a miniscule fraction of the UK population has no place on this page. --JW1805 19:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Saint's cross for Wales?

Does the white cross under St. George's cross stand for a saint for Wales? Squamate 14:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's just there because the St George's Cross is a red cross on a white background. The white cross is there jsut to have some of that white background in the Union Flag, although the main background colour is the blue of the St Andrew's Cross. The Union Flag doesn't actually contain any Welsh symbolisation, which has at times been a bone of contention (see Flag of Wales). David Underdown 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Flag of Saint David which is the saint's flag for Wales. As Wales was considered a part of England upto the late 19th century, there wasn't much chance of it being included in the Union Flag. Astrotrain 14:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost Symmetric

"... almost symmetric ..." says the article. It is symmetric. One of the symmetries is rotation by 180 degrees. Jimp 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Europe Day"?

Is it really true that the national flag is flow to celebrate a supranational governmental entity? Seems a bit farfetched to me. 212.1.155.136 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport maintains the list (http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/dates.htm) of the dates. The flag is to be flown on Europe day alongside the flag of the European Union, though the Union flag is to have precedence over the European flag if only one flagpole is available. Dumelow 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • In practice, some buildings will just fly the Europe Flag though- particuarly if there is a politcal motive. Astrotrain 17:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanded

I've expanded to include the rules of the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Office. I cannot find anything from Wales though. Astrotrain 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

At present we have our article about the flag of the United Kingdom spread across two articles: Flag of the United Kingdom and Union Flag. The "reasons" for this are given above. Essentially, I believe, it boils down to trying to satisfy two edit warring sides: should the article be as "Union Flag"/"Union Jack" (itself contentious) or at "Flag of the United Kingdom". The previous proposal to merge was in 2006.

I propose that consensus is to avoid the names of flags in the naming of articles across Wikipedia but to use a standard "Flag of XXX". That the flag of the United Kingdom is also an official flag in Canada, that is has a common name, or that it forms a part of the design of other flags is irrelevant: this is also the case for other flags. In any event, having two articles on the same subject is a duplication as so should be merged. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'd support a merger, with a redirect from Union Flag. Flag of XXX does seem to be the convention on Wikipedia. Lurker (said · done) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. But why on earth are we having two concurrent discussions on two separate Talk pages? Very confusing. Which I suppose is the very purpose of Wikipedia:Content forking in the first place. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. The Union Flag article is a similar article to this one with a few minor differences in content, but both cover the same topic. As "Union Flag/Jack" is a contentious issue I think adopting the standard of "Flag of XXX" is probably the best option, and a merger of "Union Flag" into this article should probably be done. – Marco79 05:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The Union Flag is not only the flag of the United Kingdom and the subject of the UK flag is very different from its status elsewhere. To me it seems rather akin to a vote to merge the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article with the Monarchy of Canada article - yes, they discuss the same things, but are at least theoretically entirely different. How about a short page explaining the status of the Union Flag in Britain at Flag of the United Kingdom, but the vast majority of information being available at Union Flag. --Breadandcheese 12:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose naming "Flag of XXX" but Support merger. Have Flag XXX redirect to "Union Flag/Jack". The is clearly a good argument to merge articles but as pointed out by Breadandcheese the flag has a much broader use than just as the Flag of the United Kingdom (of which it is only the de facto flag anyway as there is not strictly an official ntional flag). Its use as Falf of XXX can clearly br satisfied in the wider article. Dainamo (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also strongly oppose merge direction as per Breadandcheese. Yet the problem with merging Flag of the United Kingdom into Union Jack is that there is content relevant to this article that is not relevant to the Union Jack (eg Welsh representation). Correct-o-pedia (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is merged, the very information you mention can be in the article under an appropriate section. Dainamo (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support the merge, as the Union Flag is the flag of the United Kingdom and the flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Flag. I disagree with Breadandcheese's analogy and analysis, as to me they are the same thing. When someone looks at the Union Flag they immediately think UK, that's why they are the same thing. It definitely should not be merged into an article named Union Jack, as that's not a name that is officially used by the government these days. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for suggesting title Union Flag or the more popularly named Union Jack is that such a title can cover all of its uses including that as a flag of the UK. In contrast naming it "Flag of the UK" could only give a anrrow use. Dainamo (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With the flag of the Netherlands, we don't make a "theoretical" distinction between its use as the flag of the Netherlands and it's use as the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Guidance on merging says that a sound basis for a merger is where there is a large overlap between articles ("Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.")

Why should it be in this direction? Just as with the flag of the Netherlands and the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, its use as the flag of the United Kingdom is its most notable feature - and in fact, its use in Canada, or incorporation into other flags, in based on that fact. (Really, details regarding flag days in Canada should be detailed in Flag of Canada.) "Flag of XXX" is the standard naming convention on Wikipedia for state flags. (And common sense is that we already have enough trouble deciding whether it's the Union Flag of the Union Jack, when unquestionable it's the Flag of the United Kingdom.) --sony-youth^pléigh 02:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point that the narrow use of an item can often be the most logical naming convention as in your example of The flag of the Netherlands. However, unlike the Flag of the Netherlands whose history in both contexts [Kingdom of and single European nation] is inseperable, the Union Flag/Jack has a much broader use and background that is not satisfied by simply calling it "Flag of the United Kingdom". THe Wiki naming convention of "Flag of Country" has the purpose of making referencing easier, but if a redirect is simply placed in "Flag of the United Kingdom" then such referencing is not hindered. You might of course argue that a redirect could als be placed in Union Flag/Jack but I consider a. Union Flag to be more inclusive of all its uses. b. less importantly (being a little pedantic) there is no actual offical flag de jure for the UK, the Uniion Flag is on a de facto symbol for such use. Dainamo (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that aren't de jure in the UK. That's the way the UK works. It doesn't meant they don't exist. I'm sorry but I also can't swallow the argument that use of the flag of the United Kingdom as 1) the flag of the United Kingdom and 2) it's use in other contexts is separable. The mood in the United Kingdom may to disassociate itself from it's imperial history, but this does not negate the historical fact. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the de jure argument that was just a throw away comment of mine. Irrespecitve of obvious historcial connections, there are going to be issue surrounding the union flag separate to the national flag. For example debating it use on the Flag of Australia in a modern context which are clearly not going to affect what is the "Flag of the United Kingdom". Another point to raise is the Union Flag used by the British Army which is clearly not the flag of the United Kingdom as its 5:3 dimensions are different. Also I can't quite see the relevance of historical iterpetations on imperialism to this debate. I am more concerned about the merge than the title to be honest, but I think I have made my preference for the title and my reasons clear. Dainamo (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fully support the merge. It is one flag that both articles are talking about, even tough it has many uses. The history and the various current uses should all be described in the same article. The Flammability example is very good. That leaves the question of the name. It is unquestionable that "Union Flag", "Union Jack" and "Flag of the United Kingdom" are all names for the flag - the question is which one is best for the name of the article. In general, I don't like the "Flag of XXX" convention - it goes against normal Wikipedia naming conventions, incorrectly suggests that every country has something that can uniquely be called "Flag of XXX", and can ignore wider or more significant uses of the flag. There is no need to always use a convention that is not always appropriate, which is probably why Flag of Catalonia is a redirect. JPD (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, merge under the name Flag of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should NOT support merging the articles . They are different . Someone may become confused if you merge them . You should leave them be . Just a link would do . Wiki member 2007 (talk) Visit my talk page , I will talk more there .

It could appear to some that there is a trend to wait for a certain proposal to become popular, and chose that time to close the subject and action that proposal with justification. Furthermore, a vote in a short fixed time frame is not an appropriate method to adopt. All stated opinions from all unique users within the relevant talk pages should be taken into account. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are only too well aware, Union flags date from 1606. However, the flag of the United Kingdom itself dates from 1801. How can you legitimately include in the flag of the United Kingdom article, information regarding the flag of a previous State, namely the Kingdom of Great Britain, (1707-1801), and the conjoined flags of the separate States in the preceding kingdom (note 'lower case') of Great Britain, as it existed between 1603 and 1707? The Union flag with the fimbrication of the Cross of Saint Patrick may rightly fit the title 'flag of the United Kingdom', but its predecessors, in all their forms, do not and should be subject to their own specific article entitled Union Flag. IMHO the articles should remain separate. Rab-k (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1707-1801 state was also called the "United Kingdom". However, this is irrelevant. It is common practice to include relevant earlier related flags in article of these kind e.g. the article Flag of France is about the flag of the French Republic, but contains information the the flag of the Kingdom of France. In talking about the current flag of the United Kingdom, it would be pertinent to discuss pre-1801 version, whether we call the article Union Flag, Union Jack, Flag of the United Kingdom or Butcher's Apron. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• strongly oppose The Union flag should be used to describe the flag when it turns up in dozens of other flags (example New Zealand) saying that the flag of the united kingdom is in the New Zealand flag makes no scenes, its best to think of the Union Flag and the flag of the united kingdom as two separate things since the use is so wide spread. --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

The New Zealand flag feature the flag of the United Kingdom in its canton. This makes perfect sense owing the the history of New Zealand as a former colony of the United Kingdom. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

sony-youth^pléigh may wish to note that the Acts and Articles of the 1707 Union refer to the "united Kingdom of Great Britain" - note the lower case in "united". The inclusion of the upper case "United" in the title "United Kingdom" only followed the unification of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. Yours is a common misconception but, as you say, "irrelevant". I have no difficulty in including the History of the flag in the article concerning the Flag of the United Kingdom, but this should not be at the expense of the Union Flag article, which also includes those flags which precede the Union Flag adopted upon the creation of the United Kingdom in 1801. The articles should not, IMO, be merged as they concern distinct subject matter which, while sharing a degree of commonality, are not interchangable. No flag shown below can be described as a "Flag of the United Kingdom", however each could be described as a "Union Flag", along with that first used in 1801:

Discounted designs circa 1604

English Union Flag from 1606 to 1707

Scotch Union Flag from 1606 to 1707

Protectorate Flag from 1653 to 1659

British Union Flag from 1707 to 1800

Rab-k (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Small case 'u', yes, but that state was still called the United Kingdom (see primary sources). Some upper case, some lower case, but all calling the state by that term.

As for the flags you outlined, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the same flag. Number 1 being draft designs for it, numbers 2 and 5 being identical in design and meaning, and 3 being a variant. This flag could be dealt with on it's own at Flag of Great Britain but, rather sensibly, that page is currently a re-direct to a page that discusses the current flag of the United Kingdom, it's origins and uses.

Flag number 4 is discussed in the article Protectorate Jack. --sony-youth^pléigh 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. The lower case "u" indicates a descriptive term, not one employed in the actual title. As for primary sources, the only source of any import is the primary source upon which the whole thing is based: Articles of Union. I also can't quite understand how you can interpret flags associated with the Union of the Crowns 1603, the Acts of Union (1707) and Act of Union (1800) as being one and the same thing, given they relate to introduction of a single monarchy encompassing the entire "isle and kingdom of Great Britain", the creation of the "Kingdom of Great Britain" as a single unified State, and the creation of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" respectively. Again, I have no difficulty with explaining the origins of the current flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the article by that name. But I stress again that those flags which are pre-1801 in origin are not UK flags. The only UK flag is that which dates from 1801, whose origins can be traced to the flags of the "Kingdom of Great Britain", "Kingdom of Ireland", "isle and kingdom of Great Britain", "Kingdom of England" and "Kingdom of Scotland". Rab-k (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Small 'u' or not, people called it the (U/u)nited Kingdom before 1801, which was what I said. Splitting hairs over whether that was the correct name or not is neither here nor there, "the United Kingdom" or "the UK" is likewise not the correct name for the states properly called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but anway like I said, that's irrelevant either way.

"... they relate to ... and the creation of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' respectively." - You did not display the flag of the UKGBI in the picture show above. The four flags I noted as being the same were:

• Number 1: draft designs for the royal standard of "isle and kingdom of Great Britain" (1606-1707)
• Number 2: the royal standard of "isle and kingdom of Great Britain" (1606-1707)
• Number 3: a variant of the royal standard of "isle and kingdom of Great Britain" (1606-1707)
• Number 5: the royal standard of the "Kingdom of Great Britain" (1707-1801)

If you cannot see how the royal standard of the "isle and kingdom of Great Britain" (1606-1707) is one and the same as the royal standard of the "Kingdom of Great Britain" (1707-1801) then that truly is unfortunate. (Almost like saying that the Flag of Europe is different between the (E)EC era and the EU era, or that the UKGBI flag is different from the flag of UKGBNI).

As for if any of those flags being the flag of UKGB(N)I, no they are not, but they are crucial in discussion that flag and intertwined with it. You could create an article at Flag of Great Britain if you thought it was deserved. At present that page redirects to discussion of the flag of GBNI, which is currently, and for no good reason split across two pages. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the wording of the Acts and Articles of Union may be an inconvenient truth, to be countered by a 'de facto' use of an upper case 'U' in certain documents post 1707. This does not take away from the fact that those pre-1801 designs are not UK flags, they are those of either the State flag of the "Kingdom of Great Britain" (1707-1800) or one of two versions of the Royal and maritime flag of the "isle and kingdom of Great Britain" (1603-1707). What you may regard as "splitting hairs" is simply stating facts in that the 'de jure' creation of the "United Kingdom" in 1801 and the State flag belonging to it, and to the Soveriegn State which since 1927 has gone by the name of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", is that which contains the fimbrication of the saltire of Saint Patrick. Any other similar flag is not by definition a UK flag. By all means refer to them in the article concerning the Flag of the United Kingdom as being the source for the design of that flag, but do not call them that which they are not. IMO the pre-1801 flags of Great Britain require a specific article. Your suggestion that it could be styled Flag of Great Britain with a re-ditrect to Union Flag, or vice-versa, is one which I would be happy to support. Rab-k (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

In response, we could divide Union Jack into:

Correct-o-pedia (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The existing section, status, could be merged into other sections. Royal Union Flag could be called The Commomwealth Flag or something along those lines. I disagree that flag of the United Kingdom is the most appropriate title since within the Commonwealth it is seen and used as the flag of the British Commonwealth. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The flag that you linked to was the flag of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. The flag of the United Kingdom is never used as the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations. Making stuff up like, "Royal Union Flag could be called The Commomwealth Flag or something along those lines," is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. I don't understand the purpose of posting a proposed table of contents, it's distracting. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Union Jack was used as the Commonwealth flag for a long time (the longest in fact), but that heading may have been better as A Commonwalth flag, under which it's use in the Commonwealth could be addressed. Canada chose to fly the Union Jack as a symbol of membership in the Commonwealth long before the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations came along, and it is still used as a symbol of membership. I did not say it was used by everyone as a symbol of membership. Anyway I thought my preference for Royal Union Flag (as a section title) was implied by including it in the table, and that "not-this-but-something-to-do-with-the-Commonwealth" was implied by "or something along those lines". That would allow for other Commonwealth uses in that section, but, is not my personal preference. A table of contents is an efficient way to assess the viability of laying out a merged article. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"I did not say it was used by everyone as a symbol of membership." - You said even more than that, you said that it "is seen and used as the flag of the British Commonwealth." Again, the flag of the United Kingdom is not, and never was, used as the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations. Stop proporting it to be so. It was used as the flag of the United Kingdom, whether that be in the period of the Empire, whether by the UK or it's colonies, or today. Use of the flag in Canada, as the source you provided explains, "is considered as a 'symbolic flag'". As the source says, it is first-and-foremost the flag of the United Kingdom and secondly a "symbol of membership in the Commonwealth and allegiance to the Crown" owing to Canada's history as a colony of the United Kingdom. The incorporation of the flag of the United Kingdom into the flags of other independent states has the same origin, it represents the link between those states and the United Kingdom. It is always, whether used symbolically nor not, the flag of the United Kingdom. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read propperly. "You said even more than that" - No, I didn't. "Within the Commonwealth" does not mean by the whole Commonwealth. It means by at least one country within the Commonwealth (or I would have said "by the Commonwealth"). "Seen and used as a flag" - not officially by the Commonwealth (or I would have said so), nor by the world (or I would have said so). "Secondly" is still a use. You are assuming words that are not there in order to make the statement incorrect. Note that "Royal Union Flag" is not an existing section. I am proposing that it be one, or if someone doesn't like that, a more general section on use of the flag within the Commonwealth. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're running very quickly away from your original stance towards the realistic statement that Canada uses the flag of the United Kingdom on certain limited occasions to honour its historic relationship with that country. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Canada does not use "the flag of the United Kingdom"; Canada uses the Union Flag, which is, by Canadian statute made on December 18, 1964, a flag of Canada, used to symbolise the country's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and allegiance to the Crown (see here). These are the subtle differences a number of people here seem to be overlooking. --G2bambino (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the merger occurs and, if it's merged into flag of the United Kingdom, what do we call the flag in the article — Union Flag, Union Jack, UK flag or British flag? – Marco79 06:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are merged into flag of the United Kingdom then British flag seems to be the most proper short reference. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All are acceptable. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all are acceptable, but I too think that British flag seems to be the most proper short form to use for a merged article titled flag of the United Kingdom. – Axman (☏) 13:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If the articles were merged here, then this article would contain all of the history (etc) of the Union Jack and more. So as an encyclopaedic system it doesn't seem to be wrong in any way to re-direct Union Jack and Union flag to flag of the United Kingdom. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather like to merge this two article, instead of seperating two different articles about a flag, which is Union Jack and Flag od United Kingdom...My suggestion is to put it into one article with two contents in it, with the title of Union Flag (Flag of United Kingdom)...This is better than redirecting from each other...That is the way to save up some space in Wikipedia. -- smilesofangels —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilesofangels (talk • contribs) 05:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger Straw Poll

To add to the debate above, I though it might be a good idea for people to state their preference by signing below the appropriate option (please leave comments to debate above) Dainamo (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Option 1: Do not merge have two separate articles of flag of the United Kingdom and Union Flag (Redirect on Union Jack)

1. Axman (☏) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Rab-k (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Jza84 · (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Astrotrain (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Breadandcheese (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
6. --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}
7. Xeon 800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.3.168 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Mjb1981 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 2: Do not merge have two separate articles of flag of the United Kingdom and Union Jack (Redirect on Union Flag)

Option 3: Merge into Flag of the United Kingdom (Redirects on Union Flag and Union Jack)

1. sony-youth^pléigh 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. 203.94.135.134 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Pupster21 Talk To Me 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
6. OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Marco79 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Halfmast (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Dorzey (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
10. 81.107.92.108 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 4: Merge into Union Flag (Redirects on Flag of the United Kingdom and Union Jack)

1. Dainamo (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. G2bambino (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Srpnor (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
4. fchd (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Option 5: Merge into Union Jack (Redirects on Flag of the United Kingdom and Union Flag)

1. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Option 6: Merge into alternative title - state title .

______

Comment Well after three months and a consensus to merge, is somebody going to do it? Any objections if I do it? (Will wait a week or two so people have time to comment.) Halfmast (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather wait 6 months. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I only noticed this debate now, but I'd like add my support for merger, as it's obvious the two articles refer to the same thing. Teemu Leisti (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Now. It's confusing and unencyclopedic to have half the information in one article and half in another, with readers never knowing they are missing the other half of the info. The two articles are about exactly the same item — who can dispute that? So there should not be more than one article. If necessary for space, the merged article can have spin-off sub-articles ("See Main Article") for anything that gets too unwieldy — like perhaps the outdated 'Flag days' — but perhaps that won't be necessary for a well-edited, well-merged, and well-sourced merger article. Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Now - as above. Get on with it.- J Logan ^t: 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Caution/Oppose: Firstly, I do not see a strong consensus here. The straw poll shows that HOW any merging is to be done is undecided. Secondly, I think that a merger with a redirect to Flag of the UK will break a number of articles relating to the British Commonwealth. Initially I was opposed to the merger, but now I admit I am no longer so sure. Commonwealth nations do not use the flag of the United Kingdom as a nation, but rather (I gather) the royal banner their sovereign used at a particular time... the banner of a monarch who *happens* to also be the sovereign of the UK. I think this issue needs to be examined, and resolved. (Blame heraldry and commonwealth constitutional monarchies!) We could have one article about the symbol currently in use in many non-UK commonwealth nations, or we need to have heraldry articles from each Commonwealth nation repeat the same thing "...the union flag of 1801..." blah blah. It just seems inefficient to me. I remain opposed, feeling that the status quo is less awkward than mashing the two articles together. I am beginning to think that a rename for Union Flag might be more appropriate, but that might be sleep deprivation at work... - BalthCat (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation validity

Citation of Standard Note: SN/PC/4474, section D 1

The citation is not appropriate to this context. The only statement of relevence here "...referred to commonly known as the Union Jack (when flown at sea)", is plainly incorrect. The flag is commonly known as the Union Jack everywhere. The validity of this citation is questionable as it is meerly a note (unapproved, no status of any kind) to summarise a topic for the benefit of MPs. Standard notes can be compared to dissertaions with pretty logos. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at this note it does seem relevant to the article itself, wrt flying the Union Flag with other flags. I can see some relevance wrt the statement: "... commonly known as the Union Jack (when flown at sea)", but I can't see how it is incorrect. As a published parliamentary note it is used to summarise already published government rules and/or parliamentary discussions. So I've re-included the link as an external link, not because of the statement or your views above, but because it also relates to other sections in the article, such as how the various British flags should be flown together, etc. – Marco79 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why remove ref?

The reference tells me that when the British flag is used at sea, it is to be only called the 'Union Jack', and not the 'Union Flag'. Maybe it could be reworded. So, why was the reference for the Royal Navy's use of the British flag removed? --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reword it to indicate this, that it's only correct to call the British flag the 'Union Jack' when flown at sea and not the 'Union Flag'. I think it's important to know this difference between the names. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From that sentence and its reference, I understood it to mean that it's only correct for the Union Flag to be called Union Jack when flown from the jackstaff of a ship. But I believe this is a Royal Navy thing, although I do think it should still be mentioned in the article. – Marco79 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"...and this is the only name used when it is flown on Royal Navy vessels"? I may have misunderstood the text when I removed it. The current wording is clearer. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns for a new Union Flag

"Campaigns for a new Union Flag" has no business being under "flying the flag". It should be with the history section on the flag (now in the other article). Also the recent developments on Wales shouldn't be in the pre-1801 part of it. --129.241.214.20 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A British Flag for the New Millennium

In 1999 the The Heraldry Society had a contest to design "A British Flag for the New Millennium" Here is the winner. The vertical lines indicate Gules, and the horizontal lines indicate Azure. Just thought I'd put it on record. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a colour image now. -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an offspring of the old British Rail logo:[Image] Rab-k (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Flag of Newfoundland and Labrador already did it first (and arguably better)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interregnum / Commonwealth (Cromwell) flags

The article as it now stands seems to studiously avoid any mention of the Oliver Cromwell period; for now, I added "see also" links to Protectorate Jack and Commonwealth Flag... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article disagrees with the official specifications—needs changes?

...with regards to the proportions. The official booklet "Flying Flags in the United Kingdom: A guide to Britain's flag protocol" [1], published in March 2010 by the Flag Institute and the Flags and Heraldry Committee, states in Appendix C (p16):

The normal proportions for the national flags of the United Kingdom are 3:5 on land, but ensigns are customarily made in proportion 1:2.

However the article currently states, incorrectly, that the non-military land flag is 1:2. Normally I would change something like this myself, but I realised that all the images would need changing too, and would prefer that someone more experienced do it (and also check that, for instance, the colours match the Pantone values given in the document). 188.221.240.150 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisited: Merge with Union Flag / Union Jack

Some time ago, at the end of 2007, a discussion took place on merging the articles concerning this flag into a single article. A consensus was reached and it was agreed to wait three, and then six months for objections to be raised. 3 years later, and nothing has happened. I see nothing which invalidates the earlier decision and so I propose that the articles are merged into Flag of the United Kingdom as planned. I'm aware that there will be protests from people who disagree, but the delay in taking action on the last discussion does not invalidate the result. The irony is that a new vote would be anti-democratic, as it would seek to disregard a previous result. Amend-o-pedia (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Secularism and multiculturalism

The current article should perhaps consider examining whether there have ever been any proposals to change the British flag in light of the modern ideologies of secularism and multiculturalism. It is generally recognized that contemporary Britain has a declining Christian population, due to the rise of atheism and agnosticism, as well as an increasing non-Christian population, due to factors like immigration and above-average ethnic birth rates. In light of all this, it is not at all unreasonable to think that the Union Jack's days are numbered, since it merely represents the symbols and identity of a population who is no longer in the absolute majority. ADM (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article may consider anything that already has a credible source as long as this in not original research. Besides which would it be accurate to say that any entrenched symbol relies on the original motive for its use - if so, we would have to believe that that doctors employed the use of staffs and serpents! Dainamo (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Union Flag/Union Jack

I just wanted to let people know that I'm changing the bit about the union jack referring to a naval jack, because as shown by the union jack article, that is a load of tosh. 2.102.81.45 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the UK flag?

User: Political Dweeb here has a question about the meaning given by two flags that construct the United Kingdom flag. I want to understand does the red colour of the two flags that are St Patricks flag and the English flag/St Georges flag have any particular meaning or was it chosen for a different reason?

Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Click on the links in this article to those two crosses (St Patrick's; St George's), and you will find out about the origin of the red colour. There is additional historical information at Union Flag; that is, until someone merges the two articles. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Political Dweeb here does not seem to have found anything on the articles about the St Georges and Patricks flag that explains the meaning of the red colour of these two flags crosses.

Do you hapen to know if there is any meaning to red colour of these flags crosses. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.211.217 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for a belated answer, but in general it's somewhat in vain to seek for specific concrete meanings for the colors of abstract geometric shapes in heraldry. Sometimes an official interpretation of the meaning of a country's flag appears in a law or legislative resolution or executive decree ("red for the blood of the martyrs by which our independence was attained" etc. etc.), but such interpretations are generally rather arbitrary, and in some cases obviously ex post facto (retroactive). AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The original Union Flag was adopted before the Scottish and English governments merged creating a UK government, so it would still have a place as the monarch's flag. 62.253.9.84 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue colour in the Union Jack and the Scottish flag

Why is the blue colour different in the Union Jack and the Scottish flag? --Vitzque (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a recent distancing.

There is no fixed blue for either flag. The original Union Flag was the St Andrew with the St George cross allowed house-room upon it. Since then the Union Flag has undergone finessing in the hands of the Admiralty in particular in which it became 1:2 in proportion and the blue has reached the rich, dark, royal blue of today. Where St Andrew flags were sold they tended, until recently, to have the same blue.

In 2003 a committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended that Pantone 300 be used for the St Andrew flag. You could be suspicious about an SNP-dominated committee trying to distance the Scottish flag from that of the United Kingdom, or perhaps that is too cynical. The colour has not been ratified by the Lord Lyon nor decreed by an Act of either Parliament; it remains a recommendation, though one that flag-makers have started to follow. Hogweard (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

RAF ensign

In the flag infobox, all the derived ensigns are labeled by "Use" at the top of their section, e.g. "Naval Ensign", except the last one. Shouldn't it be labeled too, as "RAF ensign"? ({{Ping}} me if you want me to participate.) --Thnidu (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of the United Kingdom. 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/20130630062430/https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx

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) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flag of the United Kingdom. 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/20081016132137/http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.html to http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016132137/http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.html to http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/faqs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809013048/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12378.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12378.asp

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) 00:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)