Talk:List of proposed Australian flags

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal List of proposed Australian flags is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Heraldry and vexillology

List of proposed Australian flags is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Hibbert Flag: Notability Requirement

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_proposed_Australian_flags&diff=prev&oldid=888144769 See edit above: This flag appears to have been added by its creator for exposure, and has no reference outside of the creators website. If we don't have some sort of clear notability requirement (media articles could possibly be a good bar), trying to stop self-promotion seems at least a bare minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelith (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements

We have to come up with a better threshold then just this free for all we've got. Like who the heck is Brett Moxley when he's at home?

58.167.88.126 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just found a flag which I posted to a Facebook group, which someone else uploaded to Wikipedia! I'll remove it and a couple of others that appear to be self-promotional. -- Chuq (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Moxley is the Designer of the Southern Horizon flag. This flag has been very popular whilst picking an alternative to the current Australian Flag. Southern Horizon Flag Throttler (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Federation flag

None of the proposals of the federation flag (without the union jack), are shown. This is a blue cross on white, with five stars placed in the blue cross, much as the eureka flag. Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

missing images

Can someone fill in those gaps?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

This should not be a place for people to promote their personal flag designs. There are other forums for that. In my view we should only list proposed flags if they have received secondary coverage. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and deleted all the flags that don't have independent sources. Some of them were cited as some person's wix page, or 7 different designs they submitted to AusFlag. Catiline52 (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should have some criteria to limit what flag designs are shown to those that are genuinely notable. Independent sources sounds like a suitable criterion. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the deleted designs have received secondary coverage. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to add sources for them rather than to delete them entirely, especially given how Wikipedia serves as an almanac. It would also be worthwhile adding a column to the table for the names of known designers.

1.127.110.240 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a flag yesterday which seemed to be the invention of the person who uploaded the image. Per the usual Wikipedia standards (especially WP:V), I agree that the article should only include proposals which have received coverage in independent reliable sources. I very much doubt that AusFlag meets the criteria for reliable sourcing - I'd suggest that we should require that the flag has been covered in the news media, academic papers, books, etc. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible to me. And I agree, Ausflag on its own is not sufficient sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]