Talk:Union mark of Norway and Sweden

Union jacks and proper nouns

The union jack of Sweden and Norway 1844 - 1905 is called in Swedish unionsgös, in Norwegian Unionsgjøs. As gös/gjøs is a common noun, not a proper noun, it was usually not written with capital letters. Except that most Norwegians until 1907 followed the German custom of writing common nouns with capital letters. But there were exceptions; see the illustration from Tegninger af Norges flag by C.J. Anker, 1888. Prior to 1906, the Swedish word was spelled giös.

The word used to denote the union jack of Sweden and Norway was certainly not a proper name or noun, unlike the British Union Jack, which may be considered to be a proper name, like the Dannebrog of Denmark or the Tricolore of France. And the U.S. union jack is certainly a common name, see http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Seaflags/seaflags.html#contents.h

This website cites several Navy regulations. Here is one: “The U.S. union jack consists of the blue canton of the ensign. Jacks are displayed at the jackstaff, a pole mounted on the bow of the ship, on ships in commission or in service. They are never flown ashore. The size of the jack is always the same as the size of the canton of the ensign at the flagstaff. The jack is displayed only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and sunset, when the ship is not underway and the ensign is flying on the flagstaff. If the ensign is half-masted, so is the jack. (Navy Regulations 1259.5 and 1264; NTP 13(B) 0804)”

Please, let the union jack and diplomatic flag of the Union between Sweden and Norway be called by that name, not capitalized.Roede (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Fry, the name in old Swedish was not "Unionsgjös", and not a proper name. Neither was it a proper name in Norwegian, as may be verified by a closer look at the caption by C.J. Anker in the article's illustration from his book of 1888. I also recommend doubters to consult the excellent article on naval jacks in the Swedish Wikipedia, Gös (flagga). The following excerpt has no capitalization of the words örlogsgös, örlogsflagga, unionsmärke or unionsgös:

"Som örlogsgös på svenska örlogsfartyg förs en mindre örlogsflagga. Mellan 1844 och 1905 användes det svenska-norska unionsmärket som gös på svenska och norska örlogsfartyg, vilket uppenbart var inspirerat av den brittiska ”unionsgösen” – Union Jack." Roede (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Union Jack of Norway and Sweden — or a tale of Trolls?

The following discussion seems to be more relevant here than on my talk page:

"Please STOP decapitalizing "Union Jack" and revert back to it properly. The official name of the flag was Unionsgjös. Because that is a designated name rather than an informal name, that makes it a proper noun, and also makes it's English translation a proper noun. It's Union Jack, not Union jack. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for the alleged official name unionsgjös? Roede (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This. Unionsgjös is a single word, and because it's an official name that means it is a proper noun. That also means any English translation, even if it's broken into two words instead of one, is also a proper noun. The proper translation of Unionsgjös in English is "Union Jack", with the capitalization on both words because it's a proper name. The flag was only called the örlogsgös when used as the naval jack by the Swedish and Norwegian navies. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that image is one my own contributions to the world of vexillology. And if you look closely at the caption, you will see that the author, lieutenant colonel Carl Johan Anker (1835-1903) wrote the name unionsgjøs not capitalized, because he - and everybody else in Norway and Sweden - considered it a common noun, not an official name, and certainly not a proper noun. I recommend the excellent article on naval jacks in the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Gös (flagga). The article has no capitalization of the words örlogsgös, örlogsflagga, unionsmärke or unionsgös. It does state that the unionsgös is evidently inspired by the British "unionsgös" — the British Union Jack. Which is a proper noun and name, like the Dannebrog and the French Tricolore and the Stars and Stripes. But the naval jack of the US Navy is just the union jack, according to the US Navy Regulations: "The U.S. union jack consists of the blue canton of the ensign. Jacks are displayed at the jackstaff, a pole mounted on the bow of the ship, on ships in commission or in service. They are never flown ashore. The size of the jack is always the same as the size of the canton of the ensign at the flagstaff. The jack is displayed only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and sunset, when the ship is not underway and the ensign is flying on the flagstaff. If the ensign is half-masted, so is the jack. (Navy Regulations 1259.5 and 1264; NTP 13(B) 0804)". See: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/Seaflags/ensign/Ensign.html. Roede (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The British "Union Jack" is not a proper noun because that's not it's real name, it's just the name that has been commonly associated with the flag. It's real name has always been the "Union Flag". The US' "Union Jack" is a proper noun because that is the official name of the canton of the American flag when used by itself as the jack of the United States Navy. The American situation has more in common with the Sweden-Norway Union Jack than the British one in that sense. Yes, naval jacks are never flown on land (except a few unique circumstances), but the Sweden-Norway one wasn't just a naval jack (örlogsgös), it was also placed in the canton of the civil flag and ensigns of Sweden and Norway (handelsflagg), the royal standards of the two kingdoms, and flown by itself as a common consular flag at embassies. Because of those uses, it never would have been called the "örlogsgös" except for when it was being used as the naval jack. Different uses distinguished the different names, either örlogsgös or unionsgös, depending on what situation it was used in, even if it's still nominally the same flag either way. Because of the unique history of the word "örlogs" being associated with military navies in Scandinavia, it could not have been called örlogsgös except when used by either the Swedish or Norwegian navies, the other uses would have to have a different name, and the image shows that it did, that name was unionsgös. Now the rules about nouns and capitalization may be different between Swedish and English, but this is the English Wikipedia, and under the rules of the English Language, unionsgös would properly be translated as "Union Jack". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Union Jack of Great Britain is not an official name, no more than the Stars and Stripes and the Tricolore. But they are all popular nicknames, evoking patriotic sentiments. That makes them proper names, commonly capitalized in writing, as are personal nicknames (Satchmo, Fats and Billy the Kid). In Scandinavia, nicknames are also capitalized. But among existing flags, only Dannebrog merits capitalization, because it is a proper name. The only other Scandinavian flag (of the modern period) with a commonly used nickname, was "Sildesalaten" — originally a pejorative term, but often also used as an affectionate name. Hence capitalized. But the official name for that symbol was unionsmerket/unionsmärket. Not capitalized in Swedish, but usually capitalized in Norwegian until 1907. (But not later, because of an orthographic reform). In both languages no national flag, official or not, will have its appellation capitalized. And that seems to be the case in most countries (Le drapeau de la France, le pavillon de la Marine, De vlag van Nederland, De geus van een marineschip van de Koninklijke Marine) The Dutch naval jack, by the way, has a proper name: "Prinsengeus". Even in English-speaking countries flags are denoted with common nouns, unless they have individual proper names: (national flag of France, flag of Denmark, flag of the Netherlands, the naval jack of the Netherlands — and the union jack of the US Navy or the jack of the United States). All of these examples from the English Wikipedia seem to confirm that on this website, and under the rules of the English Language, unionsgös/unionsgjøs would properly be translated as "union jack".

Our friendly discussion seems to have reached its conclusion, all arguments having been introduced for consideration. I propose that we let the article remain in its present stat, until new relevant information is brought forth. Roede (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I haven't had time to respond. Read what I said again: I never said "Union Jack" was an official name for the UK flag, i said the very opposite. The official name is "Union Flag", "Union Jack" is just a common nickname. I also said that Unionsgjos IS the official name for the Sweden-Norway flag, and because of that, it is a proper name, and therefore capitalized under the rules of the English language. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

STOP TROLLING! It is a proper noun and must be capitalized! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)"

Roede (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the union jack of Sweden and Norway 1844–1905. It deals with the union badge, which was used as the canton in most flags of the two united kingdoms. It started out as Union badge of Norway and Sweden and ought to stay that way. An article about the union jack used by the navies of both countries is of course a good idea. But for the present article, the heading Union Jack is misleading, since that term was used only for the naval jack, not for the saimilar diplomatic flag. And certainly not for the badge in the cantons of other flags. That was called unionsmärke in Swecish, unionsmerke in Norwegian. Roede (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources have already been provided that "Union Jack", through translation, was the name of the flag. You haven't provided any counter-sources and until you do "Union Jack" should be the term used on the article. You can object all you want, but sources are sources. I've already made clear the grammatical situation of "Uniongjos" in the English language" If you change the name of the article again, I'll have to take it to a dispute resolution board because I don't have the time or the energy to keep beating a dead horse. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

True, Fry, the sources I have provided confirm that unionsgjøs/unionsgös is the name of the flag in question in the countries where it was used. English translation: "union jack". But the article we are discussing has from the beginning dealt with the union badge, the emblem inserted into the canton of most Swedish and Norwegian flags in 1844. "Union badge" is a tranlation of the equivalent terms in Swedish and Norwegian, unionsmärke and uninonsmerke. Popularly it is perhaps even better known under the jocular terms sillsallaten (Swedish) or sildesalaten (Norwegian). Those are the headings of the corresponding articles in Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedia. I encourage you to take this friendly debate to the dispute resolution board. My guess is that the board will agree with me that the present article should be moved to "Union badge of Sweden and Norway", and that a new article should be written about the badge flown as a flag on its own, the "Union Jack of Sweden and Norway". I intend to implement this solution quite soon. Greetings from Lars Roede (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You have not been able to provide any source whatsoever for the claim of the name "union badge", and until you do, I highly doubt there will be any support for changing the article to an unsourced name. The fact is that the flag had two names, "orlogsgjos" and "unionsgjos". "Orloch" is the original Low German word for war, while the Danish (and hence Swedish and Norwegian) derivative "orlog" through it;s history became reduced to the use only for naval warfare. Therefore the name "orlogsgjos" would only refer to the flag when it was used by the navies of Sweden and Norway, ANY use outside of that would not be appropriate to use the term "orlogsgjos" and therefore the name "unionsgjos" would be it's name outside of the use by the navies. Therefore "orlogsgjos" isn't a proper name in the context of this article for the flag's use as a common diplomatic flag and canton badge in the two countries' flags. You haven't posted a single source for any Swedish or Norwegian name that can be translated as "union badge", and this article should remain under a sourced name. If you try and split the two names up because of your personal issues with it being called "Union Jack of Norway and Sweden", you will be doing a disservice to Wikipedia, there is not enough information to warrant two separate articles. I also hope you're not seriously suggesting we should name the article "Herring Salad flag" like it's Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedia counterparts. Just let this go already and move on. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This article began as the Union badge of Norway and Sweden, and its main topic was exactly that, the union badge or emblem in the cantons of both nation's flags. Its initial main illustration was the square union badge as seen in Norwegian flags, and in addition examples of flags with union badges were shown. From the beginning, the text informed us that the Swedish version of the badge, used on its own in a flag, was the common union jack and diplomatic flag.

On 24 June 2007, I supplied the first illustration of this flag, scanned from Anker's flag book of 1888.

On May 2 1912, you moved the article to "Union jack of Norway and Sweden", leaving the text unchanged and still dealing with the badge and only indirectly with its use on its own as a flag. On the same date, you changed the introduction, stating that the Union Jack was inserted into the flag cantons. Misleading, since the badge, not the jack, was inserted. On 23 May you put in the rectangular version of the badge, and changed the caption to read "Union Jack".

On December 27 2012, I moved the article back to its original heading Union badge of Norway and Sweden and revised the text correspondingly. And that is where it ought to remain, since the text and the illustrations chiefly deal with the badge, its background and the conflicts it generated. Itis worth noting that the interwiki links link to articles dealing with the same subject, not to articles of the naval jack of the union.

There are very good reasons to create a separate article about the unionsgös/unionsgjøs, just as the term naval jack deserves a separate article in the English WP, as it has in several other languages.

You complain that I haven't provided sources for the name "union badge". Maybe so, but the eqivalent terms in Scandinavian languages are to be found in all books and articles about the union and the flag histories. Try these sites:

http://www.nationaldagen.se/sveriges-flagga/historia/ http://www.mera.se/flaggRegler.html http://runeberg.org/pionjarer/bjornson2/0017.html http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk-norska_unionen http://www.stortinget1905.no/main.php?modul=2&h=16&u=88&popup=1&p=b&a=7 http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/09435/24D952CBBAA6BF902793C438BFA984C53BBA2254.html http://snl.no/unionsmerket

The translation of unionsmärke/unionsmerke into English is tricky. User:Inge, who created this article, chose "union badge", and no one has objected to that choice. Some dictionaries go for "union emblem". Zeljko Heimer and Jan Oskar Engene in their excellent article "Norwegian flags of the union period" in Nordisk flaggkontakt 2005 call it "union mark". On the FOTW website, you will find both "union mark" and "union badge". One FOTW text has this comment: "Much of the confusion in the colonies was caused by the fact that the governor flew a Union Jack with the badge of the colony on it when afloat, but a plain Union Jack when on land." It seems to me that we can safely keep this article under its original heading. But more importantly, we need a heading that clearly tells our readers that its topic is the emblem/mark/badge that defaced the flags between 1844 and 1905. Roede (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The title DOES tell the reader what the subject is about. The only difference between "Union Jack" and "Union Badge" is YOUR nitpicking, which I don't even understand. You will never be able to produce a reader who is confused by the term "Union Jack" and who will say if it was called "Union Badge" that would assuage their confusion. You also don't seem to understand that the subject of the article is the flag in all it's uses. Since the flag was used on it's own in many circumstances such as a diplomatic flag, calling it a "badge" is completely inappropriate in the Englisn language, because it's not a badge of anything, it's by it's own. You even admit freely here more than once that you have truoble giving period sources for the name "Union Badge", and that your own primary period source supports "Union Jack" . Those are your own admissions, I didn't pull your fingernails to get them. You're the only person who cares about this, nobody else cares at all enough to even say anything here in the 8 months you've argued about it. I'm not going to continue arguing with you, because this is not my problem, it's not wikipedia's problem, and it's not any of wikipedia's readers' problems. Only you have a problem with the name, and you're inconsistent in your arguments about it. As I said, if you move the article back or change the titles to suit your nitpicking, the next step will be a dispute resolution board, but I am done here. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Heres's another contemporary (1909/1920) source supporting the "union badge" (unionsmärket) http://runeberg.org/nfcj/0589.html, and this page from the same source mentions the union jack (unionsgösen) http://runeberg.org/nfbj/0476.html but describes it as a flag with the union badge. It seems to me that there are several sources that support the name union badge and one image supporting union jack. The name "unionsgös" sourced by this image is correct for the naval jack in the image, but it doesn't follow that the badge itself is called unionsgös. Sjö (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Union Jack of Norway and Sweden → ? – The article title should be recognisable and precise. What is the evidence that "Union Jack" is used commonly in reliable English-language sources to refer to this flag? If "Union Jack" is not the common name or is not used by reliable English-language sources to refer to this flag, then the title is neither recognisable nor precise. There are sources for:

"union mark": Book by Thomas Hylland Eriksen; fotw website; Britannica entry by Whitney Smith

"union badge": Nordic Embassies; Official Act. In the absence of evidence to the contrary or consensus on an appropriate name, the article should be restored to the original title (union badge). relisting Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Move logs: [1][2]

Did you actually read the entire above discussion, and all the sources provided? I've already made clear my source for the name of the flag itself, which is what this article is about. The article is not about the symbol used only in the canton of the flags, it's about the symbol in all it's uses including by itself and "union badge" is not appropriate when it is used by itself. Period sources, instead of modern ones which aren't reliable in historical context show only "Orlogsgjos" and "Unionsgjos". I've already gone over the grammar between both English and Swedish, but I'll go over them again for you. "Orloch" is the original Low German word for war. The Danish, Swedish and Norwegian derivatives "orlog" have been reduced to the use only for naval warfare. Therefore ANY use of the symbol outside of the two navies would not be able to call it the "orlogsgjos". The only other period-sourced name for the file we have is "Unionsgjos". That directly translates into English as "Union" and "Jack". There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, nobody is confused by the title, nobody cares except one, who hasn't provided any factual period counter-sources. We should call it what it was called at the time, so you need to provide a period source with "badge" or "mark" or some other sort of Swedish/Norwegian equivalent of those words. If you can't provide that, but instead have to use unreliable sources that are 107 years in the future, then your argument for the move in the name is not supportable. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:USEENGLISH, we should use the name found in English-language sources. If we were to call it the native name at the time the page would be at Unionsgjos or similar. DrKiernan (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Per User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions, the condition that you "must refrain from commenting on individual editors" appears to still be in force. You have broken that condition in your first sentence above. DrKiernan (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you should show some sort of period English source. Do you have one? The Swedish and Norwegian Wiki articles call it "Herring Salad Flag", should we name the article that??? Why is there such a problem with naming it what it was actually called at the time in Swedish and Norwegian? Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Official Act is from 1898. We don't use foreign-language terms when an English-language equivalent is available and common. DrKiernan (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not available and common, it's 107 years out of date. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 4 modern sources. In contrast, there don't seem to be any using "Union Jack". DrKiernan (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to my above reply: "We should call it what it was called at the time". Your 4 sources are not period. File:Orlogsgjøs 1844.jpg is. Yes it's a matter of translation, but that doesn't change the fact I've yet to see a period source with "badge" or "mark", which makes what you are proposing a leap-of-faith extrapolation. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Roede already provided two sources for unionsmerke/unionsmärke above. There's also the 1904 Flaggfrågan i Norge [3]; 1889 Dalpilen [4]; 1908 Nordisk familjebok [5] among others. I don't understand your argument when you first say we can't use old sources because they are "107 years out of date" and then say we can't use modern sources because we have to use sources of the time. Either way, the sources use union mark/badge and none of the English-language sources say "Union Jack". DrKiernan (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you said, or if you mixed up what I'm saying, but I am trying to argue that we should use sources from the time this flag was in use. That is 1844-1905. Modern sources can easily contradict old ones because it's been 107 years since anybody has last used this flag in any real capacity. For that reason, I don't consider modern sources reliable. The only source from that time I had seen listed on this page does not use "badge" or "mark", it uses "jack". Of the sources Roede listed above, all are modern, two are on other language Wikipedias which both have chosen to name the article "Herring Salad flag" (which surely you don't consider an appropriate option), and one doesn't even depict the symbol properly, if they can't get that right I don't trust them on the terminology. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support but relisting. The oppose argument seems contrary to WP:AT, which makes no mention of discounting current sources, rather it seems assumed that current sources are preferred. Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And where does it say that bit of conjecture? Supporting unreliable sources is a joke. You obviously disagree, but if something's a hundred years old, I'll take the source from the time and not modern interpretation and sources that contradict each other (some call it this, some call it that, there is no standard in all the modern listed sources) or can't even depict the symbol correctly. Yes, the modern sources are so much better! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As is made clear by the Norwegian text below the image, the source you've linked above does not show the union badge nor is it a modern source: it shows an 1836 draft proposal from the Norwegian parliamentarian Jonas Anton Hielm. DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why is it even listed here as a source? Other ones that are not as solid as suggested are "The Official Act" as you put it, of which there are several problems. The first is the PDF isn't actually an Act, it includes commentary and only in that commentary does it actually mention the symbol. Second, it's not from 1898 but from much much later because it includes the coat of arms and flags that were not adopted until after the dissolution of the Union in 1905. In fact it includes the decree on the coat of arms from 1937. Another source you yourself listed for the use of "Union Mark" is the FOTW source which actually says "Union Mark and Jack". If you're going to claim there's no modern use of "Union Jack", please don't list a source contradicting yourself because I can and will read them. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's called the union mark and the union badge all over that page. The union badge is used as a jack, but it isn't called the "Union Jack". The term "union jack" is not used anywhere on the page. In fact, it doesn't appear to have been used in any reliable source anywhere at any time. DrKiernan (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

But the primary title which you're conveniently overlooking clearly says "Union Mark and Jack". Also FOTW is written by amateur vexillologists and flag enthusiasts, often without direct sources. How reliable. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some sort of reliable consistency in your sources. As I said above "some call it this, some call it that", and by your own words "It's called the union mark and the union badge all over that page", suggesting no consistency at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So you agree then that "In the absence of evidence to the contrary or consensus on an appropriate name, the article should be restored to the original title (union badge)" because it is better to call it something that it is actually called. DrKiernan (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree inasmuch the part saying we should call it something that it was actually called, which has been my main emphasis this entire time. It's already been proven that it was called "Union Jack" at the time. Whether it was along-side or not along-side other terms as well is really irrelevant because the term was used so I don't see your point. It appears that the interest placed here in disproving "Union Jack" at any cost is so strong that any source that uses another term is fine, even when together they contradict each other and are inconsistent. What do you suppose we do then? Ignore half of your sources that say "mark" and call the page "Union Badge", or should we ignore the other half that say "badge" and call the page "Union Mark"? Or maybe we should just call it "Herring Salad Flag" like the Swedish, Norwegian and Estonian language Wikipedias just to be consistent with them? After all, that was a common nick-name of the time, so it was "called that" too. No, we should use the source we have from the actual time of the flag and the proper grammar surrounding it. Not modern sources which contradict each other and call it this, that and anything else and require leaps of faith in interpretation and reliability. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, there are no sources calling it "Union Jack". DrKiernan (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

'For the umpteenth time, yes there are unless you're blind. is absolutely 100% a source. Then there is also the FOTW source which you were standing by so firmly only a moment ago. What happened?? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent the source. Nowhere does that source say "Union Jack", with or without capitals. Sjö (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the sort. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought you said that the FOTW source called it "Union Jack". Sjö (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. Here's another contemporary (well, almost) source supporting the "union badge" (unionsmärket) http://runeberg.org/nfcj/0589.html, and this page from the same source mentions the union jack (unionsgösen) http://runeberg.org/nfbj/0476.html but describes it as a flag with the union badge. It seems to me that there are several sources that support the name union badge and one image supporting union jack. The name "unionsgös" sourced by this image is correct for the naval jack in the image, but it doesn't follow that the badge itself is called unionsgös. "Union Jack" only describe one use of the badge, namely that as a jack. Sjö (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Sjö (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. "Orlogsgjos" is the term for it as naval jack, as shown in the photo. I've already very well explained the origin and root of "orlog" in Swedish and Norwegian above, "unionsgjos" could not be the name when it was used as naval jack just as much as "orlogsgjos" could not be used in any capacity outside of it's being naval jack. The article is about the symbol itself, not it's use in the flags of Sweden in Norway. It wasn't a "badge" when used by itself, you can't call it such. If this article was about it's use in the two countries' flags' cantons only, it would be different, but the article is about the symbol primarily, and includes it's solo use as a flag on it's own as well as a "badge". Now if this article is to be forcibly renamed, "Union Mark" is preferable. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't argue against straw men. I didn't even use the word örlogsgös and I never argued that it was called a badge when used by itself. But. please do comment on why your one image trumps all the other sources, especially when the image can be intrepreted to be consistent with the other sources. Sjö (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing nor have I said you said any such thing. You said "Union Jack" only describes the badge when used as a jack. I said that's simply not true, and I'm right. I've explained quite clearly the root and origin or "orlog" in the Nordic languages and it's restriction to naval usage, which makes it the exclusive and proper term for the symbol when it was used as a jack. "Unionsgjos" would be it's term outside of that based on the source I have. I've also made my point very clear that all the sources listed here are modern, they are not from the actual time and I would use sources from the time and consider them more reliable. The other arguments are the fact that in both English and Swedish/Norwegian, "badge" implies a defacement, which would be correct for the symbol when it was in the cantons of the two countries flags, but not when used by itself. This article is about the symbol itself, that is the main subject, the article is not restricted only to the symbol's use in the cantons. Now, is there any actual source listed in the original Swedish or Norwegian that can be properly translated as "badge" without taking a leap of faith? No, there is not. THere are sources for "mark", which is why I've made a concession you've overlooked, stating that if the article is the be renamed, it should use "mark" rather then "badge". This is for two reasons, again the first being there is absolutely no source for the term "badge" in either Swedish or Norwegian, the second being that even if there was, the implications of the term make it inappropriate. For as long as this article is about the symbol in all it's usages including by itself, any term that implies only it's use as a defacement of the two countries' flags is inappropriate. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, do I understand you correctly if I say that your argument is that because it is a naval jack it can't be called" a union jack? Sjö (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is of course another option I had not thought of until now. There has been precedent on here to name articles using the original name in another language. Based on that, we could name it "Unionsmerke" or "Unionsmerket", which are sourced. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Badge, mark, merke/märke, tecken or synonyms of those are all possible names. Sjö (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an 1844 source: a scanned copy of Post- och Inrikes Tidningar, scanned by the National Library of Sweden with the text of the official proclamation: PoIT July 2, 1844 . "...gemensamma örlogs- flagga sålunda förändras... att flaggans öf-versta fyrkant närmast stången skall utgöra ett för båda Rikena gemensamt Unionstecken, ...(description and use on pennant)... 4:o att till Örlogsgös och till nyttjande för de för-enade Rikenas Beskickningar och Konsuler hos främ-mande Makter, skall såsom flagga användas Unions-tecknet i Örlogsflaggan;"...common naval flag so changed...that the upper canton closest to the pole shall be a for both Realms common Union Badge (Unionstecken) ... 4:o that for a Naval Jack and for the use of the united Realms' Diplomatic Missions and Consuls to foreign Powers, shall as a flag be used the Union Badge in the Naval Flag;" Based on that official text, the offical name (in Swedish) of the particular red-white-blue-yellow pattern we are discussing is unionstecknet. Sjö (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The translation of "tecknet" (the source also calls it "tecken") to "badge" is not as direct as you imply, it's a dishonest stretch. In fact, none of the sources here actually translate to "badge" in any way, so to use it remains a leap of faith, never mind the grammatical implications of that word which are incompatible with this article's form. Because of the difficulty of getting an accurate translation from any of the terms (the most common root translation for all of them seems to be "sign" more than anything else), I think we should now choose one of the terms in original Swedish/Norwegian and name the article that, as set in precedent on such articles as Anschluss, Regia Marina, Seimas, Saeima and others. Because it has the most sources right now, I'd suggest naming the article Unionsmerket, but am not objectionable to naming the article Unionstecknet based on your source. The entry paragraph can elaborate on common terms and translations. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources here use "badge", and you have commented on them which shows that you have read them. However, "mark" seems to be used by the majority of sources, so in my opinion that's the better name. There's WP:ENGLISH but also the question of which language should be used, Swedish or Norwegian. Using the English term won't invite another debate about which term to use. Sjö (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are English sources. I'm talking about the fact none of the sources in Swedish or Norwegian use a term that directly (or indirectly) translates to "badge". Now yes, there is WP:ENGLISH, but there is also the precedent and practice to use the original term in whatever language it originates, under certain circumstances. I believe this falls under those circumstances, but not so much that it is the only option, I'm simply putting it out there as a potential resolution. Because of the near mutual intelligibility between Swedish and Norwegian, I do not foresee a problem using "Unionsmerket", but I am not objectionable to using the English term "Union Mark" as it is the most common translation and does not carry the incompatible connotations of "badge". On a side-note, I have reverted your removal of the word "defaced". It may not sound positive, but it's the correct heraldic and vexillologic term, and therefore not a POV problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question Is Fry1989 the only one who favors the title "Union Jack of Norway and Sweden"? Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who favours what so your question is completely facetious. What does matter is we are working on a solution and getting very close. I'm not exclusively in favour of "Union Jack", I am infact trying to reach an agreement on another term to use, as long as it is not "Union Badge" and I've made clear why that is. If you read the above replies, you can see we're nearing agreement on "Union Mark". As for my revision of your recent changes, having "unionsgjos" in Norwegian and "Unionsmarket" in Swedish was not a proper thing to do, it is completely inconsistant. We're trying to choose one term that is used in both languages. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Union mark of Norway and Sweden is OK with me, possibly with an upper case "m" if it is a proper noun, which I don't believe it is. The Swedish and Norwegian words differ, so you would have to choose one or the other (or both) which has its own problems. Sjö (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Because "Unionsmarket" (or "merke", "merket", whatever) is the name we're going with, it's a proper noun because it is the name of a subject. It may be split into two words through translation into English, but it remains a proper noun, so "Union Mark" with both words capitalized would be correct. As long as you have no objection, I will move the article and this dispute can be over. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't capitalised in the vast majority of cases/sources. As we should generally follow the established style, it should be in lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that "badge" has more merit as a translation of this particular meaning of "märke". But what I'd really prefer is the English language term for this vexillology-related concept. Does anyone know?

As for capitalization in Swedish, it has been quite rare to do it overall. My impression from descriptions of "unionsmärket" (the most common term in modern Swedish sources) is that it's descriptive more than an official term. It's really impossible to tell with any great certainty. The English term, however, should definitely be considered descriptive since it's not going to be "official". So definitely no "Union Mark/Badge/Whatever". Not unless it's written that way in English language sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I should add that "märke" and "tecken" in Swedish should be considered completely synonymous in this case. Both could be translated as either "mark" or "badge", and I don't see any conflicts with the Norwegian term.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this move requires no admin assistance and there really seems to be only one user who has ever favored "Union Jack" as a name, I've moved the article back to the "badge" title for now and removed the request. This is a very obvious case of WP:RM/TR: if articles are moved without consensus support, they should be moved back until such support is evident. Now, this is not to say that "badge" is the correct term. I'm merely reverting to the previous title. The discussion has already been geared towards deciding between "badge" or "mark".

Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter idk under what reason you believe it was prudent to move the article, but it was completely counter-productive and inappropriate to jump the boat and ignore this process, especially considering that another name may yet be chosen requiring yet another rename. You should have waited until consensus was clear and this discussion was complete. As for your claim that "badge" is a more meritous translation, please provide a source because I have never been able to find any of the actual Swedish or Norwegian terms listed here having any translation even close to "badge". Without a source, that remains an opinion. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Union Jack" is quite clearly wrong, even you hint to that, and you're the only one who has ever been in favor of it. "Badge" might not be the eventual choice, but at least it's actually used in English language sources, and is already mentioned in the article. As stated before, I will favor whatever is used in vexillologist sources. In English, that is.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never hinted at that thank you very much, don't put words in my mouth. What I have done is show more flexibility on this issue than some, in recognizing that there is a proliferation of various terms, and because consensus seems to be leaning away from the one I chose (which is actually sourced, despite your edit summary claiming otherwise), I'm willing to work with those involved here on building a consensus for one we should use. I am against the use of the word "badge" for very obvious reasons and that will never change, but I am not against using another term if everyone else thinks we should. Now, as I said, moving an article when there is an ongoing discussion on it's talk page was not appropriate or prudent, because the outcome and choice of term is not yet clear. You should have waited. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Union Jack" is clearly wrong. We have no obligation to keep misleading titles on account of formal protocol. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Let's try figure out whether it should be "badge" vs "mark" instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is NOT wrong, it is simply one of the many terms out there being used. Nobody would die if you had waited, don't even try and pretend it was a life-and-death matter that you couldn't wait for this discussion to conclude. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Most English-language sources seem to use "mark" and the two that use "badge" are translations made by the Norwegian government. The reliable sources Flags of the World and Encyclopedia Britannica both use "mark". Also "badge" has a specific meaning in vexillology [6] and the unionstecken doesn't fit that definition very well. I don't know if "mark" has any special meaning, but at least it istn't in the FOTW glossary of terms. Based on that, I prefer "mark", but "Union Jack" is clearly wrong as a name for the red-white-blue-yellow pattern itself. Sjö (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree on the incompatibility of "badge". I have stated above that I am not objectionable to "Mark", capitalized as this is a proper noun. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule in English for capitalisation of the names of inanimate objects; "pound sterling", "Canadian dollar", "question mark": these are all specific entities not a class of entities, but we don't capitalise them. DrKiernan (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are rules in the English language about the capitalisation of nouns, proper nouns, and proper names. Anybody who has had a school education will remember such tedious rules from their childhood. I forgot them long ago (though I certainly didn't forget how hard it was to learn and remember them all) and had to re-learn them recently, but rules they remain. There is no reason not to follow them. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And we do capitalize both words on Union Jack (and it's real name "Union Flag"), a very similar situation to this. It's also done for the nicknames of other flags on articles like the US flag, the flag of Malaysia, and the flag of Quebec. Clearly there's precedent on the proper use of grammar. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no such rules. You can also see this in the OED if you look under "Union Jack" it says "Written either with capitals or small initials" and then gives examples of both.Link for subscribers It also defines "Union flag" as "The national flag or ensign, formerly of Great Britain, in later use (from 1801) of the United Kingdom", and again gives examples of use as "Union Flag", "Union flag" and "union flag".Link for subscribers It's simply a style choice. All the sources choose lower case for union mark, and so (as I said above) we should do the same. DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes there absolutely are rules in the English language for the capitalization of certain words under certain circumstances. Whether we follow them on Wikipedia is a different matter, but to say they don't exist is false. I never said there were such rules on Wikipedia, what I said is there is the precedent of common practice and I see no reason in deviating. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Common practice in this case is to use small initials. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Common practice on Wikipedia is what I meant and that was quite clear by my referring to several wiki flag articles. You are suggesting the application of grammar from a foreign language which may have rules of it's own different from English, but this is clearly the English Wikipedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English-language sources: they all use lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, your suggestions about capitalization and terminology have been discussed very thoroughly and reviewed fairly. By now, the idea of calling this "Union Jack", etc. has no consensus support and available sources have clearly shown that they don't support such a title. You're not going to get much further with this particular issue, so how about just moving on to other aspects of improving the article?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you call repeatedly denying that there are any rules in the English language about grammar and capitalization a "fair review". I have never seen in my life someone try and say there are no rules in the English language. The whole thing is made up of rules, rules about spelling, rules about capitalisation, rules about the use of apostrophes and commas. Yes, all these rules are annoying and cumbersome at times, but they clearly exist and it is the most preposterous thing I have ever seen. I have absolutely no idea what DrKiernan could possibly expect gain from denying the indisputable, but it was NOT a fair review of my point, no. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I said there were no rules for capitalisation of the names of inanimate objects, and there are no rules for the capitalisation of union jack and union flag, and have provided sources and examples that prove it. As usual, you've twisted that into "no rules in the English language", which I of course never said. I'm fed up with your uncivil attitude and your obvious contempt. The next time I'm on the receiving end, I shall be pushing for your indefinite block, instead of pushing for your unblock (which I now regret doing). DrKiernan (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I said there are rules in English for the capitalisation of nouns and proper nouns and other words under certain circumstances. You said "not for inanimate objects", and later said there are "no such rules". As it looks like we're leaning towards "Union Mark" as the chosen term, the context we're using it in makes it the name of a thing. A noun is a person, place, or thing, with a proper noun being the name of a person, place, or thing. Proper nouns are always capitalised. Nowhere is there a rule the thing has to be animate and alive. So I ask you, show me where the rules for proper nouns exclude inanimate objects. Just show me one source, and I'll shut up forever about us needing to capitalize the name of this symbol. As for your suggestion that I hold contempt, it's rather obvious and has been for along time that we don't get along and never will. I hold contempt because you and I have a serial inability to work together without arguing everything to a fine point. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Proper nouns are not always capitalised. I have proven that above. I have shown you sources above. You are either misreading my comments or deliberately misinterpreting them. DrKiernan (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Fry, you're the one insisting that this is a proper noun. Please show us at least a few sources that support that it has ever been considered a proper noun in Swedish or Norwegian.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quoting the grammatical rules of the English Language. We are intending to use "Union Mark" as a name of this thing. Names of things are proper nouns, and proper nouns are capitalised. Just because it isn't capitalised in some other language doesn't changes the rules of this language. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As shown by the sources, it isn't capitalised in this language either. DrKiernan (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to my above comment: "I am quoting the rules of the English language". I don't care about the mistakes of others, just because some person who writes an article doesn't take care, it doesn't set a whole new precedent and over-write the long-standing rules of this language, or any language for that matter. I'm horrible at French, if I don't capitalize something properly or some other mistake, that doesn't change the rules of the French language either. Disagree all you want, but that's my stance and I'm sticking to it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of capitalisation of proper nouns, the OED is a superlative source and it is written by a team of experts. They do not make mistakes and they care very deeply. It is very clear that proper nouns in general can be capitalised or not, according to personal taste, and there is no rule that they must be capitalised.

On the issue of whether the particular phrase "union mark" is capitalised, you are the only person using capitals, everyone else uses lower case, including the experts in professionally-edited books and encyclopedias. Let me re-iterate: all the experts, all the copy-editors, and all the sources use lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to mark?

I think Sjö made a pretty good case that "mark" is the more common, and vexillologically appropriate, term. Any objections to moving the article to union mark of Norway and Sweden?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me, as indicated in the opening comment. DrKiernan (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me, too. Congratulations! The English term union mark is probably a better translation of the Swedish and Norwegian terms unionsmärke/unionsmerke. At least the two are etymologically related and mutually recognizable. This article started out as union badge in 2006, but might just as well have been called union mark. The point of the lengthy discussion above is that it was an article about the mark/badge/symbol/emblem that was used as a canton in various flags from 1844 until 1905. No one has ever argued against the term union jack to denote the common naval jack of both countries, identical to the union mark in Swedish flags. This discussion started when the article was moved to Union Jack in May 2012. I moved it back in December 2012, but was quickly overruled. I then chose to stay away for a while. I was glad to find today that the futile discussion seems to be terminated, thanks to good champions.

My plan, when the dust had settled, was to write a completely new article on the Union jack of Sweden and Norway, an article about the naval jack, not the union mark. I wrote it out and saved it for an opportune moment, which seems to be now.

By the way, moving the Swedish article from sillsalladen to unionsmärket was a wise move. I shall presently do the same for the Norwegian article. The official term is better than the nickname, which in fact was a pejorative one. Roede (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not actually a flag, I believe

As far as I understand, this article isn't and was never intended to be about any particular flag, but rather a flag detail. That the detail happened to be the pattern for the union naval jack and diplomatic flag is kinda irrelevant. The move to "Union Jack" seems to have muddled this issue somewhat. The lead should be reworded to reflect this.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This symbol was used in at least half a dozen different manners, including as the common naval jack and diplomatic symbol used at embassies, both of which make it a flag in it's own right. The article is supposed to be about the symbol itself, and all the different ways it was used, both independently and as a part of other flags. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it's not about a specific flag. The lead has been reworded accordingly.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It IS about a specific flag, a flag that happens to be used in multiple ways. The Union Flag of the UK is a flag, and also placed in the canton of several other UK flags, in a vary similar fashion to this flag. Your interpretation is mistaken. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unionstecknet is not a flag. It is part of a flag, and the pattern is used as a flag, but unionstecknet is not a flag. Sjö (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the names, I'm talking about the thing whatever we call it. It was used as a flag on it's own just as much as other uses. This article is about all those uses. Why is that difficult to grasp? Fry1989 ^eh? 03:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I do understand that, thank you very much. That's why I'm opposed to any translation of unionsgös as an article name because that was the name for the jack but not for the other uses. Sjö (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you do, and I'm also glad you admit "unionsgos" (and hence it's English translation) was a name of the flag in least in one context if not all, which is more than others are willing to admit to despite a very clear source otherwise. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your choice of words is unfortunate and somewhat insulting. I don't "admit" that there is a flag called unionsgös, in fact is said as much in my very first post on this page. I would also like to point to these quotes where other editors here have clearly stated that unionsgös is the name of the flag in at least one context. "The union jack of Sweden and Norway 1844 - 1905 is called in Swedish unionsgös, in Norwegian Unionsgjøs." (Roede) "If we were to call it the native name at the time the page would be at Unionsgjos or similar." (DrKiernan) Please keep the discussion polite and factual.

There seems to be a consensus that a translation of unionsgös should be in the article, perhaps as "union jack", for the flag by that name.Sjö (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Admit", "acknowledge", agree", whatever word you prefer, you did state that unionsgos was the name in at least one of the many many ways this symbol was used, and I was thanking you (not insulting you) for doing so because there are others here who still try and deny any such name ever existed despite a source otherwise which is as obvious as snow is white. You have quotes of them saying it was, but there's 5 times as many quotes all over this page of them denying it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)