Template talk:Australian flags

Governors' under Commonwealth?

Why are the Governors flags under Commonwealth? They're not flags of the Commonwealth, they're flags of the states. —Felix the Cassowary ɑe hɪː jɐ 12:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes but it is an article for all the states, so it is best put in this section. Astrotrain 14:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Commonwealth is a separate government from that of the states and territories. Conflating the two is bad for our health. A compromised could be settled on: 'Commonwealth' would be changed to 'Australian'. —Felix the Cassowary ɑe hɪː jɐ 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How about National and clarify with "Governors of the States" ? Astrotrain 15:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, 'Australian' and renaming 'Australia' as 'National' would probably be better (there are many flags of Australia, but only one is legislatively defined as the National flag). I'll change it, but if you wish to revert, I won't push the issue. —Felix the Cassowary ɑe hɪː jɐ 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal flag is copyrighted

This means WP can only use it under fair use provisions. Fair use doesn't extend to templates, so it will have to be removed from this template. Sorry, chaps.

I'm posting this first rather than just removing it to avoid revert wars. Please read the discussion: Image_talk:Australian_aboriginal_flag.png

--pfctdayelise 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems a shame that the image cannot be used on this Template as it it is an Australian flag. However, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use are quite explicit:

The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

The image of the flag currently appears in more than 25 articles, mostly because of use in this template. Any views as to how the template might best be altered? The Torres Strait Islander flag is also still subject to copyright. The designer is now dead but it was only created in 1992. The Island Coordinating Council "does not stop commercial uses of the flag only because it has more pressing issues to attend to as part of its activities'.[1]--A Y Arktos 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the best option would be to remove all the images- except the Australian flag in the template header.--nixie 22:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, let's not go overboard. Having pictures of the flags creates a powerful image. I don't think we need to remove images unless/until we find out that the only way we can use them is fair use.

As for how to adjust the template, I think just removing the images and having the text link should be ok. It won't look too bad. pfctdayelise 04:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use is a guideline, not a policy. Could the case be made strong enough that it is fair use to include all "official" Australian Flags in this template? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. There is no infringement of copyright for the use of a flag. Astrotrain 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Scott: Hmm. Although it's not policy, WP:FU is pretty widely used. I don't think people would be too happy for us to set the precedent of FU images on templates being acceptable. Astrotrain: On what basis do you think there is no infringement of copyright? The mere fact it's a flag doesn't change much. I agree it is a pretty ridiculous situation to have a copyrighted national flag, but maybe Keating should have been paying more attention ten years ago. :) pfctdayelise 22:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I read WP:RULES, I see the third policy is "Don't infringe copyrights". Putting something known to be copyrighted on a template is rather against the spirit of that, IMO. pfctdayelise 23:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

the NAIDOC website says this:

 The Australian Aboriginal Flag is protected under copyright and may be reproduced
 only in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 or with the
 permission of Harold Thomas. Contact details for Mr Thomas are:
   * Mr Harold Thomas
   * PO Box 41807
   * Casuarina NT 0810
 Permission is not required to fly the Australian Aboriginal Flag.

so there are two possibilities for portraying the aboriginal flag on wikipedia: one: contact Harold Thomas (anyone ever tried sending mail to the Northern territory? could take a bit), or it could be argued that portraying the Aboriginal Flag on wikipedia is practically the same as flying the flag.

also, the flag-copyright-disclaimer-thingy on Image:South_Australia_flag.png (EDIT er.. the Template:PD-flag, that is) says that "Representations of national flags are subject to copyright as original works of art." Don't know where that info is from, but the Aboriginal Flag IS an official national flag. I think the copyright that Harold Thomas holds is for the original artwork, NOT for the flag itself, as a national flag.

I would definately like to find out more about this. --naught101 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

what I meant to add was that any original representation of a national flag by a wikipedian would be subject to copyright as original works of art. how does that work with the GFDL? --naught101 13:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I really like the suggestion that "portraying the Aboriginal Flag on wikipedia is practically the same as flying the flag". I think that twist is potentially worth putting forward as a variation to the fair use guidelines.

It is my understanding that the idea of original representation would only work if you were attempting to portray the flag as a three dimensional object, that is flying and flapping in the breeze. A photo of the flag would work but not if it was flat and took the whole picture. It is my understanding that 2 dimensional representations of 2 dimensional works breach copyright. A 2 dimensional photo of say a 3 dimensional sculpture does not, of a 2 dimensional painting does.

The Boxing Kangaroo flag (not official but well-known unofficial) and the Torres Strait Islander flag (made official also in 1995) have the same copyright issues.--A Y Arktos 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-jig

I've removed all the flag images to reduce the size of the template, and to make it look better- the flags made the spacing weird, and the lack of some also looked bad, I also suspect that a few more of the flags are copyrighted so its best to be safe and remove them.--nixie 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks better to me. --cj | talk 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest including the ensigns in the national category. I also don't see why the governor's article can't be listed with the states, even though it is one article for the whole country. JPD (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if somone else wants to reorganise it, I was just thrying to make it less ugly.--nixie 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

An Australian flag in the header wouldn't hurt- but I couldn't figure out how to add it.--nixie 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it ok like this? JPD (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks.--nixie 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the governors' article is back to where it belongs, maybe we should put "Australian" back to "Commonwealth" or "National"? I think it looks a bit funny having a section "Australian [flags]" under a title that says "Australian flags". Any objections? —Felix the Cassowary 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. JPD (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this finalised version. Although it would have been preferable to retain the flag images, there is probably too much entries on the template now to make that possible, together with the copyright concerns of some on the Abirgional flags. Astrotrain 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Boxing Kangaroo

The latest edit by PetaHolmes rmoved Boxing Kangaroo as there was no article. The is an article on the Boxing Kangaroo (by and large I contributed most of it) and it was not a red link on the template. In its hey day at the time of the Americas Cup win in the '80s it was a well-known flag. Perhaps, the edit summary meant to say something else, but if it really was because there was no article, it could be reinstated.--A Y Arktos 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The boxing Kangaroo article is not about the boxing Kangaroo flag, that's why I removed it from the template. It's also not an "offical flag" in any sense, it was just made up some clever marketing people, its listed on Flags of the World as Varia. It drawing a long bow to call it a flag of Australia after about 20 years use.--nixie 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not about the flag, so it's not really worth listing yet, but I think the original intention of the template was to be as the name suggests - "Australian flags", not "Flags of Australia". None of the historical flags were/are official, either. JPD (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian flag debate

Does anybody have any major objections to me adding a link at the bottom to the Australian flag debate article? It seems worthy to me as there has been widespread (heated) debate and could potentially end up causing us to have a different national flag. Any comments? AussieDingo1983 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is a template of flags, adding that link to the tamplate does not seem worthwhile in my opinion.--Peta 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peta. The flag debate article is well linked to from Flag of Australia, which is what the debate is about. JPD (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed this from the template given the discussion here. I did not realise I had done so in the edit and as such failed to put it in the edit description but was most likely going to do so after regardless given the opinions here. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)