File talk:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg

Missing DOCTYPE

This image has no DOCTYPE, and therefore Wikimedia says "Warning: This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised." However, I am unable to fix this, since the system is not accepting other uploads, only reverts. When possible, add a

<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">

on the second line. --Orzetto 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia says "Warning: This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised."

I don't see this on the file page - are you talking about what it says when you try to upload your own file here?

<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">

Not sure I follow you, but I s'pose it's possible Commons doesn't like that odd doctype. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg or http://w3.org/TR/SVG11 for more normal doctype declarations you can use (which do work here). There are other things that will keep Commons from allowing your upload, though, like <title>. ¦ Reisio 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rsvg bugs

MediaWiki uses librsvg to render SVG files. Rsvg has the following known bug: if two polygons overlap, the pixels on the border aren't colored right. Basically, what rsvg does is the following: as it reads through the SVG file, it rasterizes each shape in order, applying it to the PNG image that is being generated. So when a later shape overlaps an earlier one, it doesn't know the geometry of how they overlap exactly.

The version of this flag that I uploaded on January 17 has the white drawn first, then the blue and red. If you try to use that file as the corner of a blue ensign such as Image:Flag of Australia.svg, there will be white lines at the edges of the jack.

Just now, I uploaded a version of the flag that makes the same image, but has the blue in the "background", with white and red drawn later. This new version of the flag can be used as the corner of a blue ensign, without noticably triggering the bug in rsvg. (Perhaps eventually I'll upload a similar version for use on red ensigns.) User:dbenbenn 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent colour change of 5 Feb 2006

CMYK generally is to be avoided since it works only in print media (which uses CMYK inks). WP is a screen format (using RGB lights), and I have reverted to the last version by Dbenbenn. I myself learnt this the hard way... Greentubing (en:WP talk) 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain better what was wrong with my version? I don't want to start a revert war, but I did not use CYMK values, so I don't understand your revert.--Squerciele 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want a revert war either, and believe me I am assuming good faith. I would like to know what exactly you input to the data file (if its not CMYK values). If you did input authoritative RGB values, please accept my apologies in advance, and disregard the rest of this post.

My main isue is that Pantone can only be approximated on screen formats, and its application is never consistent across all formats, since not everyone can afford to buy the official Pantone->RGB manual.

For a pantone colour, inputting its official RGB values (as defined in their manual) will yield an equivalent set of CMYK approximations, and inputting official CMYK values will yield a set of RGB approximations, and the two approximations are not congruent. Try this for yourself, if you have access to a Pantone swatch book. This is why just extracting the RGBs from About.com is not good (not enough information there).

As for FOTW, there again they are defined to print colours, and the image of the flag there has generalised colours (not exact)—browser-safe approximates.

Unless someone can get us an RGB definition of Pantone xxx, I don't think they should be used. I myself have been in hot water over this so I feel I do have something to say. Simply putting in Pantone XXX in to Photoshop etc. and then lifting RGB values is only just an approximation.

Of course, this being a Wiki, feel free to revert my change, I don't own Wikimedia. Having made my point I will not revert back a second or third time. Its just that someone else will come along and change it. Also if I haven't addressed an issue to your satisfaction, drop me a line on my talk page and I can explain some more.

Respectfully, Greentubing (en:WP talk) 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's everything I've been able to find about the colors:

Squerciele's version uses (red, white, blue) = (#cc3f3c, #f3f2ef, #1a3872). The version that ZScout originally uploaded in September uses (#ce1126, #ffffff, #002b7f). w:Union Jack recommends (#c61018, #ffffff, #002173), citing flaginstitute.org. Flags of the World says the colors are Pantone 186 for red and Pantone 280 for blue, which according to [1] or [2] comes to the current ZScout version.

I agree with Greentubing that "Pantone can only be approximated on screen formats". But assuming that Flags of the World is correct, and that the colors are actually defined in terms of Pantone, we have to just try to pick the best approximation possible. From what I've seen so far, that means (#ce1126, #ffffff, #002b7f). Squerciele, do you have any information that disagrees with those three colors? User:dbenbenn 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My choiches were (as I stated in my edit) from here, and from the "optical white" from Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg#Green-grey-red. However, if we settle for a different color palette, it is fine for me: I just wished to improve the file, and did not understand the explanation for the edit. (Furthermore, just to be clear, I am Panairjdde). --Squerciele 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So we all agree the colors are Pantone 186 and Pantone 280, which is what this file currently uses, and has always used. Obviously the Italian flag has nothing to do with the white in this flag. User:dbenbenn 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I reported (here) the colors for Pantone codes 186 and 280. Why are they wrong? As regerds white, if no Pantone code is specified, why not any "optical" white? Thanks for the attention.--151.24.210.173 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So? Is the Pantone approximation allowable? May I revert the image to Pantone colors?--217.26.87.7 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor: please log in. Anyway, the page you cite at about.com says nothing about how to convert Pantone colors to RGB codes. Furthermore, in the absence of any other information, we have to assume the white in the flag is supposed to be "as bright as possible". In this case, that means SVG's "white" keyword. User:dbenbenn 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The site provides the palettes, so the actual RGB code. As regards white, is the "as bright as possible" a Wikimedia policy, or your personal opinion?--FlagUploader 11:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to think the colors in the images at [3] are especially accurate. They might very well be "web safe" colors, for example. I honestly don't know what the best RGB codes are for Pantone 186 and 280, but the burden of proof is on you to justify changing this image.

Furthermore, you are obviously simply making a w:WP:POINT by copying the white from the flag of Italy here. I will block you if you continue. (Constructive comments are welcome, of course.) User:dbenbenn 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you revert my edits, the burden of the proof is on you, am I wrong? My point is that those RGB colors look accurate to me, and, without an official Pantone->RGB conversion, this is the best I can do. What I am trying to say is that if you have any point against my edits, why are you reverting them?

As regards "making a point", I am just applying rules you made. You seem to use different policies for files of the same type (e.g., the "as bright as possible" rule), and it is difficult for me to contribute to Wikimedia, since I can't understand why what is wrong here is right somewhere else.

However, someone gave you the right block users on your personal judgment, so why are you warning me? I am contributing at my best, given the tought environment set by your "policies". You are free to block any behaviour you feel uncorrect, as well as I am free to modify the Wikimedia files according to your rules (once I understand them, they are a dancing target).--FlagUploader 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Why don't we use the sRGB colours listed here: Commons:Pantone color chart/British flag colours, in this case that would be:

white

#CF142B

#00247D

ZScout's colors:

white

#CE1126

#002B7F

Squerciele's colors:

#F3F2EF

#CC3F3C

#1A3872

I vote for the first version, which seems most accurate (though CorelDraw might do bad conversions, I don't know), but I'll let others comment.

--Jacobolus 22:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. (Note that Squerciele's colors were never proposed in good faith; Squerciele was simply trying to make a point about the flag of Italy.)

Nice job with the rotated rectangles, by the way. Your idea makes the SVG code a lot simpler. The only drawback I see is that you lose a tiny bit of accuracy: the red diagonal line doesn't quite meet the lower right corner of the flag, because the rotation angle isn't exact. Of course, that's only a theoretical flaw; it isn't something you could actually see. Also, although you included 44 decimals of accuracy on the angles, they're only correct to 13 decimals (according to bc). I'll go fix that ... User:dbenbenn 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Darn, sorry about the inaccuracy. That's silly. I should have double-checked. Anyway, I like the strokes. That's even better than rotated rectangles. The newest version looks good :) --Jacobolus 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool—you were wrong, but impressively accurate in error :-) Nickshanks 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Version by Pumbaa80

Just a few words why I used a clipPath:

• Adobe's SVG viewer plugin permits zooming and dragging around in the image. Without clipPath, that results in something like this:
• SVG images can be used inside other images (like this one), and that makes clipping necessary
• Even if you draw the white lines exactly to the border, some renderers have problems in drawing this correctly, leaving a blue line of 1 pixel width. Drawing a "too large" cross and cropping it by clipping solves this problem. --Pumbaa 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I didn't include a DOCTYPE, due to this article. --Pumbaa 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to revert if you like. When I opened your flag in Inkscape the clip path was annoying, because I couldn't easily see how the flag was made. Also, I don't think that including in another flag is much of an issue, since the other flag can just use its own clip path. User:dbenbenn 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You can easily remove the clip path by selecting the flag and pressing Ctrl-Shift-G in Inkscape. You're right about the usage of clip paths in other documents, but I think it's much more convenient like this:

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg>
<svg version="1.1" baseProfile="full" xmlns:ev="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml-events"
   xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   preserveAspectRatio="xMidYMid meet" zoomAndPan="magnify"
   viewBox="0 0 2 1"
   width="1000"
   height="500">

<rect width="100%" height="100%" fill="#00247d"/>
<image xlink:href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg"
   width="50%" height="50%"/>  
</svg>

That's all you need to draw this, and in a similar way, you can draw many of these these without much ado. --Pumbaa 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, except that linking to other images like that doesn't work here on the Commons, and probably never will. It would be really nice for the various British ensigns. User:dbenbenn 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another non-conformance of the software - I hate it! ;-) But I won't give up hope! --Pumbaa 05:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about renderers having problems. I know that rsvg (which is what the Commons uses) has problems with antialiasing. As far as I know, there's nothing you can do to get rsvg to render this flag perfectly. But it's possible that your version is more accurately rendered by rsvg. User:dbenbenn 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also that while Mozilla's SVG renderer handles the image fine without the clip path, a bug in Webkit's (still beta) svg renderer causes elements to bleed over the edges of the image (in this case the stroked lines continue beyond the rectangle.

And while it doesn't really matter for our purposes, Illustrator totally messes up the most recent versions. --Jacobolus 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very annoying. It seems there's not a single software application that can really handle all SVG files correctly, even if they comply with the standards. --Pumbaa 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To my suggestion, the St. George's Cross can be kept, but all saltires can be reconstruct, you can just implement two quarters as paths firstly, then use <use/> element to refer that, and transform it. --Great Brightstar (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Revamp required

{{Edit request}} I got the solution for this:

• Group all elements together
• Add additional clip path to cover them

This shouldn't impact the look of the flags, but should fix the bug that is possible to expose all terminals of saltires in some cases. So I made the implementation as File:Flag of the United Kingdom (2019 revamp).svg, and I hope my work can replace the current version. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done just 13 years to late. Thank you! -- User: Perhelion 16:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Circle for Field

I dislike the current revision's use of a circle for the field. Circles are much harder to render than rectangles, and so I am wondering why this has been used. Can someone explain? Nickshanks 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See the third bullet of Pumbaa's first comment under #Version by Pumbaa80.

Nickshanks, the version you uploaded on May 10 was broken. There was a blue line at the top border. (That might be a bug in rsvg, but it's still a problem.) So I reverted to Pumbaa's version. User:dbenbenn 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit I didn't think about rendering complexity. I used a circle because this results in the shortest code. Basically, any filled shape can be used as long as it's larger than the clipping area --Pumbaa 08:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to SVG code

I know the edit summary "Valid SVG" is a bit mystic, so here is exactly what I did:

• Line 2: Fill out the DOCTYPE
• Line 6: Remove spaces in id="..."
• Line 22: Change comment style

Then I put it through http://validator.w3.org/, where it passed SVG 1.1. ButterStick 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Official" Pantone RGB colours available now.

The current CorelDraw colours we have at the moment are

white

#CF142B

#00247D

whereas the Pantone website, at http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx, gives

white

#C60C30

#002776

I have taken the liberty of updating the flag colour templates, however I'd like to seek input from the rest of the Commons users about these new colours before doing anthing to the SVGs.

Issue concerning yet another RGB spec: I realise that this interpretation is just another set with its own peculiarities of lighting and pigment-to-light conversion. However, I feel that of all the conversions, this is the best we have, as Pantone have already taken care of the Internet/Indoor computer-end-user issue by putting the colours on their website.

ButterStick 09:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Edit request}} Here are what I have seen at the same website:

white

#C8102E

#012169

--Great Brightstar (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw these colors too at the flag color template above, so I hope everyone who has rights for this to modify the image to use these color shades. --Great Brightstar (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- User: Perhelion 11:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Category (done)

Hello, would please add somebody Category:Location not applicable ? :) with best regards, --Stefan-Xp (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

THX to Flominator!!! ;-) --Stefan-Xp (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

CascoBay.JPG

Hello, I see there seems to be a problem with the Flickr photo I uploaded of CascoBay.JPG. As I understand it, that category of image is acceptable. Here is the link to the file on Flickr.[4] The image carries the tags: Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo. Could you kindly explain to me why this image is not acceptable? Thank you.MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wrote asking to create a FlckrLickr account to solve problems just like this, but since then I've seen that no new accounts are accepted. Also, if one wishes to use Flickr images (and one knows the author), can one obtain permission from the author and post it with the photo -- or is it best to ask the author to change their copyright designation on the image itself? Thank you!MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More specific category

May I suggest Category:Union flag as a more specific category than Category:Flags of the United Kingdom --Tony Wills (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories and Languages to be added

{{Editprotected}}

This file should be added to these categories:

• [Category:Blue, red, white flags]
• [Category:SVG flags - United Kingdom] instead of [Category:SVG flags]
• [Category:SVG sovereign state flags]
• [Category:Union flag]

I also this new, more uniform list for the description to be added to and replace some of the current list. The first eleven are indigenous and historical languages of the United Kingdom:

English: Flag of the United Kingdom, Union Flag

Ænglisc: Fana Geānlǣhte Cynerīces

Cymraeg: Baner y Deyrnas Unedig

Français : Drapeau du Royaume-Uni

Latina: Vexillum Britanniarum Regni

Gaeilge: Bratach na Ríochta Aontaithe

Gàidhlig: Bratach na Rìoghachd Aonaichte

Gaelg: Brattagh y Reeriaght Unnaneysit

Kernowek: Baner an Ruwvaneth Unys

Normaund: Couleu du Rouoyaume Unni

Scots: Banner o Unitit Kinrick

The rest are the remaining languages of the European Union, plus Luxembourgish and Turkish. The current Maltese description should be corrected.

Български: Национално знаме на Обединеното кралство

Čeština: Vlajka Spojeného království

Dansk: Storbritanniens flag

Español: Bandera del Reino Unido

Deutsch: Flagge des Vereinigten Königreichs

Ελληνικά: Σημαία του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου

Eesti: Suurbritannia lipp

Suomi: Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan lippu

Magyar: Az Egyesült Királyság zászlaja

Italiano: Bandiera britannica

Lëtzebuergesch: Fandel vum Vereenegt Kinnekräich

Lietuvių: Jungtinės Karalystės vėliava

Latviešu: Apvienotās Karalistes karogs

Malti: Bandiera tar-Renju Unit

Nederlands: Vlag van het Verenigd Koninkrijk

Polski: Flaga Wielkiej Brytanii

Português: Bandeira do Reino Unido

Română: Drapelul Regatului Unit

Slovenčina: Vlajka Spojeného kráľovstva

Slovenščina: Zastava Združenega kraljestva

Svenska: Storbritanniens unionsflagga

Türkçe: Birleşik Krallık bayrağı

Homo lupus (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. odder 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Italiano: Bandiera del Regno Unito

--Guybrush Threepwood (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As the above Guybrush Threepwood requested, the Italian description should be changed, since the link is broken. Homo lupus (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Justass (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Description

Please add a description in Russian, I can't edit the file since it's protected.

Русский: Флаг Соединённого Королевства

New Category

Please add to the category Naval Jacks under United Kingdom Fry1989 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction of fields

{{editprotected}}

Change:

• Author to "Original by James I of England/James VI of Scotland; Recreation by last uploader"
• Date to 1603
• Permission to {{PD-1923}} (for US) {{PD-UK-known}} (for country of origin)

The Union Jack is in the public domain and should reflect that fact. It is not the original creation of the uploader (especially since this is a facsimile of it). Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You may now edit the page. Rocket000 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the flag dates to the inclusion of the Cross of St. Patrick in 1801, in accordance with the Union with Ireland Act 1800. I have changed the file info to reflect this. SamBlob (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note

The current version does not work with Android (Sandwich) browser. Most of the earlier versions seem to display correctly, however.

Correction

I have corrected this: by uploading the file Flag of Britain.svg: --Christmas Island (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm having the same issue in Inkscape. Mvolz (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad in editor

The current version open in the editor is bad. I redraw flag from scratch, can be downloaded here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong_(1910-1955).svg GTRus (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ratio

2021

{{Edit request}} I propose that the 3:5 ratio be used as the default ratio. The Flag Institute, which claims to be quasi-official, says that the 1:2 version is the one used at sea, in ensigns, etc., but that the 3:5 version is usual on land. Is Wikipedia on land or on the sea? The standard flags of England, Scotland, etc. are typically 3:5, and the union flag is 3:5 whenever flown next to any other 3:5 ratio flag. This file is used in numerous little boxes which renders the saltires very hard to see in a stretched 1:2 version. A strange meme has arisen which claims "only" the British Army uses the 3:5, which presumably is a misunderstanding of the idea that 1:2 is used at sea (i.e. by the Royal Navy and for nautical ensigns) and the 3:5 on land (and therefore by the army and everyone else not afloat). Moreover, the regimental colours of the army are nothing like 3:5, more like 4:5, and they use the proper heraldic version with narrow fimbriations on the horizontal cross. In all, the 3:5 version appears to be the proper one for most uses, with the 1:2 one used for nautical purposes (the wind is stronger and can support a longer flag). I think this file should be renamed to "Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg" and the file Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg modified accordingly.

• Full protocols from the Flag Institute: "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."
• Specification from the Flag Institute and failed parliamentary motion on standardization

GPinkerton (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

NB also that the Flag Institute material linked above is reproduced wholesale by the Ministry of Defence for their flag-flying regulations (see Army Dress Regulations, part 11), which is about as official as it gets in a country with an uncodified constitution whose flag is defined by a written heraldic blazon with proportions established by a mediaeval graphic design tradition, arbitrary habits of official use, and economic convenience in the age of sail. GPinkerton (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Any changes in this area are likely to cause an enormous amount of angst for very little benefit. I would suggest that Commons should be extremely cautious about making changes that will impact thousands of pages across pretty much every Wikimedia project. The fundamental rule here is expressed in COM:NPOV: It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another. That means we should not overwrite this file with a 3:5 version, nor should we rename files to cause "Flag of the United Kingdom.svg" to suddenly refer to a 3:5 version. Having CommonsDelinker update every reference to point to the 3:5 version would also be bad. We could reasonably rename this file to include an aspect ratio in the name (though I'm not sure any of the criteria in COM:FR really covers that). It might then be reasonable to update other projects (probably using CommonsDelinker) to refer directly to the 1:2 version, and once there are no Wikimedia projects using the redirect we might reasonably remove it or switch it to point to the 3:5 version. That would be quite a long process for only a small gain, but it would be an improvement and would be fairly uncontroversial. --bjh21 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Thanks for these suggestions. Yes, I'm keen not to do anything drastic all at once. It's as well to note that though a change would affect thousands of pages, many of those thousands will be tiny icons and thumbnails used in templates and so on. In these cases any change would be 1.) nigh invisible, and 2.) make the design slightly less distorted than the minute rectangle seen now, being ever so slightly more squarish.

I think of these ideas, renaming this file to include an aspect ratio might be best, to avoid giving the impression of a Commons-approved official or default version which the plain title "Flag of the United Kingdom" suggests. GPinkerton (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Leave this file untouched at its current ratio. If the 3:5 ratio flag is desired, then one can use File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg at those places. An 1801 specification of the flag is at https://archive.org/details/drawingsofflagsi00grea/page/16/mode/2up (British Admiralty publication) at 1:2 (with no mention of a 3:5 version). At any rate, this version of the flag needs to stick around. As stated above, the legislative proposal that sought to specify a 3:5 standard failed. The Flag Institute apparently does not have a lot of pull, and an organization's website claim of influence is not unbiased. There is no official 3:5, so this issue does not need to be fixed. I oppose "we might reasonably remove it or switch it to point to the 3:5 version" because that would break external links to this file. Leave this file alone and seek change in other places. Glrx (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Glrx: Thanks for your comment. I think the source you have referred to is actually from 1916, not from 1800. There is no mention there that a specific proportion having been specified in 1800. In fact, it is manifestly not the case that a 1:2 version was used in 1800. You can see the actual draft of the flag on the actual document from that year on the National Archives website. The flag here is nothing like 1:2. (It's also nothing like 3:5, and not drawn to scale, but that besides the point.) The fact is, antique documents for specifications for specific uses of particular flags (by commissioned ships, at sea, at the front of ship) do not trump documents a hundred years newer, or two hundred years newer, which give directions for general use, use on land, for government use, and for state occasions. For official use in the 21st century, see: Part 11, section 2, page 1158ff, here, where (Section 11.008) The UK's flag shape of 3:5 works well with nearly all other nations' flags and it is recommended to use these proportions if a standard size is required for all the flags in a display is the only comment on the ratio of the flag. If the original documents produced by the College of Arms in 1800 have a ratio of what might be intended to be a 5:6 ratio, then that would surely have priority over since-superseded Admiralty documents. If, conversely, the file should reflect current and official use, then the 3:5 ratio recommended by the Ministry of Defence (in their regulations which have clearly been lifted wholesale from the Flag Institute) should surely take priority over a 1:2. As I said above, different flags are used on ships to those used on land, so recommendations from the Admiralty cannot be read as recommending anything but flags for ships, and specifically for the Navy's ships. One does not need to rely on the Flag Institute's claims; it is enough to see that the Ministry of Defence (the Admiralty's 21st-century successor) is using Flag Institute images in their regulations. Please let me know what you think. GPinkerton (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

See also the new House of Commons flag: the Flag Institute's involvement there should signal (if its official use by the MoD were not enough) that it's a serious (quasi-)official body, or as close as it gets. By contrast, I don't see any reputable bodies, official or otherwise, recommending the practises of the WWI-aera Royal Navy navy for any and all purposes,, neither on land nor still less for online use. GPinkerton (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Leave it as 1:2 and create a new image for the 3:5 version, as Glrx said. Not only due to the aduced reasons of image stability, too: From a vexillological viewpoint, I think you’re misunderstanding the The Flag Institute — as a vexillologist myself, I’m horrified by the argument that a flag image stored in a computer should vary to match its position in the FIAV typology grid depending on whether that computer is currently located on land or sea… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Please read my request again. In think you are misunderstanding it. I am not making any argument of that kind. There is no need to create any new files and no need to involve symbols. The fact remains that 1:2 version is unnecessarily distorted and is in any case not preferable to the 3:5, which is in widespread official use.GPinkerton (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: I see you’re as bad at irony (or rather reductio ad absurdum, in this case) as you are at Vexillology, Commons image name policies (incl. expections thereof), and indeed common sense: If there’s a need for two images (which there is), then we need to have two images. Yet only one of them should have the exceptionally reserved filename — and that should be both match the filename status quo (check) and the most used design (check), which is the 1:2 version in both cases. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: you say "the most used design (check), which is the 1:2 version in both cases" but there is no evidence that this is the case, and common sense argues the exact opposite. The most commonly used one is the one used on land, by civilians, and by the government, and that is not the 1:2 version. Why should Commons choose to diverge from authoritative sources and use for no good reason a nautical version that distorts the design when scaled down? GPinkerton (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: Regardless of your misguided criticism of its design («version that distorts the design» — whiskey tango foxtrot) and your incorrect appeal to The Flag Institute ^{(hi Ian!)} and the MoD ^{(hi Graham!)}, 1:2 is the most used ratio for the Union Jack. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: in which country? The flag on the top of Victoria Tower in Westminster is 3:5. The flag outside Holyrood is 3:5. The flag over Stormont is 3:5. What special insight do you have on the occurrence of flags that is occluded to the UK itself and somehow makes "appeal" to official use incorrect? GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of which ratio is more common, we have the issue of image stability. Changing the appearance of an image on thousands of Wikipedia pages is something we really should not do. While having the most common variant have the unqualified name is good, it is really not common on Commons, nor an expectation. Filenames are mostly taken on a first come first served basis. File:Ship.jpg, File:Flag.JPG or File:House.jpg are not the most representative images we have of ships, flags or houses. –LPfi (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: Are there any examples of this when "Flag of Majorcountryname" is concerned? I notice "File:Flag.JPG" has not actually been called that for a decade and is a redirect; it has since 2011 been called "File:US Flag on flagpole" because a user moved the file for this very reason: "Retitle from generic filename". I am aware of the issue of image stability; I am suggesting the files be retitled, not altered. GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Do we have a guideline?

So you suggest moving this file to File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1:2).svg (I have not seen "1-2" used for ratios), leaving the redirect? That was indeed not apparent from your original posts above. I suppose that could be done, and if projects start using the new name, the redirect could be transformed into a disambiguation page.

–LPfi (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg is the instance of using a hyphen to indicate ratio. (This is implicit, if not apparent in my original remarks.) I assumed based on that filename alone that colons are not allowed in filenames, because a colon is what separates the page's title from "File:", "File talk:", etc. I suggest the hyphen but a colon would be good if possible. I suppose that leaving the unadorned filename as a disambiguation would be good; I was thinking it should eventually cycle round to redirecting to the 3:5 version, but failing that a phase of disambiguation would be good. There isn't really a One True Flag Image in this instance, so disambiguation would help direct users to the correct one in each case. "Flag of Britain.svg" redirects to the 1:2 version, but there's no reason for it to redirect to 1:2 instead of 3:5. Disambiguation could help in that case too unless/until 3:5 becomes more dominant on other projects. I think it's largely inertia and first-come-first-served that has led to this 1:2 version being used in place of the 1:2 in most wikis; like in most Wikipedia project's {{flag}} templates, with the result that there are many thousands of near-unreadable flag icons being used alongside the more comfortable ratios of other nations' flags. I'd prefer to see 2:3 ratio used for that purpose (the squarer the flag, the more comprehensible the design when scaled down) but 3:5 seems like it should be the default official ratio for most (non-ship) purposes, and is the one that's used as standard in the generically-titled Flag of Scotland.svg, Flag of England.svg, Flag of Wales.svg, and so on. There really isn't any reason to prefer 1:2, and there are good reasons why 3:5 (or similar) has the advantage over 1:2. Most people can't even tell when the flag is upside down, or never notice it has no bilateral symmetry, so I suspect if the redirect were eventually switched to 3:5 it would pass mostly without resistance anyway. GPinkerton (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My main point is that the choice of image is to be made by the users. We shouldn't impose an image change (there are rare exceptions, such as if we have clearly mislead them – just having had a lack of information as in this case is not enough). We should do our best to inform the users on what images depict and leave the decisions to them. I suppose most image user is through templates, so changing what image is used can be done with moderate work from their side. A disambiguation page or changed redirect breaks links, so should not be introduced before most links are changed to the appropriate target. (Colons can be used in filenames, as long as the part before the colon doesn't happen to refer to something, which varies between projects. In this case such a coincidence is unlikely. The issue with certain operating system is moot, as there are many problematic characters in wide use in filenames.) –LPfi (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: As an aside; I tried to upload a file using croptool just now, and it wouldn't let me do it with a colon in the title, so there's that. GPinkerton (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The original specification of the Union flag from November 1800 – the one actually approved by George III in the order-in-council of 5 November 1800. Between 1800 and 1938 – when the ratio was fixed at 3:5 – and until the present day, the normal official ratio has never been 1:2.

2022

@Bjh21, Glrx, Tuválkin, and LPfi: I think the best thing to do would be to rename the existing File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg to File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg, which will leave behind a redirect pointing to the 1:2 version. Once we can be sure that all Wikipedias are using the right images in the right places, the redirect can be changed to point instead to this file (File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg), so that all remaining instances of "Flag of the United Kingdom.svg" (as for example in templates) will summon an image of the 3:5 version. This will require ensuring that all Wikipedia pages that deal with the British flag in all languages label their images correctly. I suggest the following citation is appropriate, perhaps supplemented by those mentioned above.

All flags flown at sea come under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, which has laid down that their sides should have a 2:1 ratio. The Earl Marshal is the controlling authority over flags flown on land, and although the heraldic banner, showing the arms with a fringe of the livery colours was traditionally square, when the Earl Marshal laid down by a Warrant dated 9 February 1938 that flags flown on churches in the provinces of Canterbury and York should show the Cross of St George with the arms of the diocese on a shield in the first quarter, the opportunity was taken by means of a letter to the Press from Sir Gerald Wollaston, Garter and principal heraldic officer under the Earl Marshal, to state that flags on land should be of the approximate relative dimensions of '5 x 3'. Such a shape flies better than a square flag, whilst reducing the visual distortion caused by a flag of dimensions '2 x 1'. The dimensions of '5 x 3' for flags flown on land were entered in the Chapter Book of the College of Arms for 16 June 1947 (C.B. 21,96) as the officially accepted dimensions of all flags flown on land within the jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal.

— Thomas Woodcock, Somerset Herald, & John Martin Robinson, Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary, p. 111, in: Oxford Guide to Heraldry (1988)

Meaning, of course, that the land flags of the entire Commonwealth (outwith Scotland) ought to be 3:5, and that at the very least that is the official ratio for British flags (except at sea). The default ratio of the Union flag is 3:5 for exactly the same reason as the default ratio of the flag of England is 3:5, which appears to be accepted without question. Contrary to what has been written on much of Wikipedia, the Union flag is in every sense the official flag of the UK and has been ever since the current union with Ireland came into existence in 1801 (having received royal assent in November 1800), and, moreover, the official ratio is fixed at 3:5 for most purposes and has never been 2:1, and its usual ratio has been set at 3:5 for many decades. The idea that the the 3:5 version is a "war flag" or "used by the British Army" is simply untrue. Insofar as the flag is flown on land, it is 3:5, Army or no Army. In the King's Regulations, the ratios called for for Union flags are either 5:8 or 3:2; there is no mention of 3:5. The College of Arms continues to stipulate the official 3:5 version. In all, since Wikipedia is not afloat, the default ratio ought to be 3:5. GPinkerton (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-constructive discussion

Still wrong, I see. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC) @Tuválkin: wrong where? Or are you perhaps describing your comments above, only in which case does your comment make any sense? GPinkerton (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC) You're still wrong about wanting to change the primary UJ image from 1:2 to 3:5. The guys at the MoD and at the FI you like to quote are laughing at you. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC) No I am not wrong. You are wrong to think I am wrong. If you were not wrong, you could prove it. GPinkerton (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Since there are no meaningful objections, I have requested that this filename be changed. GPinkerton (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Other British land flags (eg. the flags of England, Scotland, and Wales, the flags of counties and towns etc.) use the 3:5 ratio on Wikipedia, the national flag should likewise use 3:5 as default. Maritime flags (the white ensign etc.) should continue to use the 1:2 ratio. CorwenAv (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@CorwenAv: I requested the file be renamed (per the above); that request was refused, discussion continues at Commons:Village pump#File move requests refused, as a result of which thread the file was eventually moved as requested. "File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg" still redirects to this 2:1 version, for now pending an evaluation of what ill-effects any changes might have. GPinkerton (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

---

2023

A debate is now live in regards to the redirect name. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is so controversial, the actual sources all seem to agree 3:5 is the default as a land flag. Valethske (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

2024

I am closing 2021 edit request as  Not done, as I think the request is no longer relevant after file renaming which was done since. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

why are clipPaths used instead of polygons?

I was always curious about this flag SVG because it uses clip paths when polygons would make more sense. It's not that the current version is wrong or anything it's just that some programs have trouble displaying clipPaths.
wouldn't something like this be better?
(colours and sizes are a bit wrong, but this is just to demonstrate)

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 1200 600" width="1200" height="600">
<defs>
<style>.cls-1{fill:#002b7f;}.cls-2{fill:#012169;}.cls-3{fill:#fff;}.cls-4{fill:#cf142b;}</style>
</defs>
	<rect class="cls-2" width="1200" height="600"/>
	<polygon class="cls-3" points="150 0 0 0 0 75 1050 600 1200 600 1200 525 150 0"/>
	<polygon class="cls-3" points="1050 0 1200 0 1200 75 150 600 0 600 0 525 1050 0"/>
	<polygon class="cls-4" points="0 0 600 300 506.25 300 0 46.88 0 0"/>
	<polygon class="cls-4" points="600 300 600 253.13 1106.25 0 1200 0 600 300"/>
	<polygon class="cls-4" points="600 300 600 346.88 93.75 600 0 600 600 300"/>
	<polygon class="cls-4" points="600 300 693.75 300 1200 553.13 1200 600 600 300"/>
	<rect class="cls-3" x="505.87" width="188.27" height="600"/>
	<rect class="cls-3" y="205.87" width="1200" height="188.27"/>
	<rect class="cls-4" x="544.7" width="110.6" height="600"/>
	<rect class="cls-4" y="244.7" width="1200" height="110.6"/>
</svg>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeKnight03 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

--TypeKnight03 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If we use clip-paths, all coordinates can be exact integers instead of approximations of irrationals numbers.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)