Category talk:Red ensigns

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category's title needs full caps

[edit]

As it speaks to a certain Britain flag and not to just any red flag with a canton (User talk:AnonMoos#Re- Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg). Any objection? Orrlingtalk 14:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. I think the category is for ensigns that are red and not just the UK's Red Ensign. There is already "Category:Red ensigns of the United Kingdom" for that flag, and perhaps if you think that name is not appropriate it can be renamed to "Red Ensigns of the United Kingdom" or "Red Ensign (United Kingdom)". — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category Red ensigns of the United Kingdom was created in the recent days as outcome of the issue while we are working out the whole thing, so saying "There is already a category for that flag" - though supporting your stance - is a bit funny. Also, no need to "oppose" when you know clearly that "Red Ensigns" is identified with the specific imperial flag and not with just "flag of any colour". If you proposed - say - Red ensigns (general) for the "by colour"-category and Red Ensign (UK) for the British ensign I would be able to estimate this <<opposition>> serious Orrlingtalk 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Category:Red ensigns = a disambig.
Orrlingtalk 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not notice that "Red ensigns of the United Kingdom" was a recent creation. I don't think "Red Ensign" is clear enough, and it is likely that other editors who have put red ensigns of other countries into "Red ensigns" will agree. My preference is for "Red Ensigns of the United Kingdom" or "Red Ensign (United Kingdom)" as those names are unambiguous. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair. Then "Red ensigns" will need to become a disambig, which assures that hot-catters trying to dump their non-Red-Ensign red flag at this category are referred to the suggestion of "Red ensigns (general)" or the UK-specific one. Orrlingtalk 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is unnecessary. "Red ensigns" should remain as a category for ensigns that are predominantly red. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said - no, we're here all about renaming that category into its capitalized form which is required basing on the explanation already given multiple times. So it can not stay "Category:Red ensigns". It will move to either Category:Red Ensigns or - if we decide that it should represent more than just the British meaning - play as a disambig where both different meanings gain equal reference Orrlingtalk 06:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with [[User talk:Jacklee|talk] and we need to keep Category:Ensigns by colour consistent. --Foroa (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm but how will we deal with the fact that a "red ensign" is mostly associated with the rather specific imperial UK banner? Anyway, the UK-specific subcat may need to move to Category:Red Ensign (United Kingdom). Orrlingtalk 07:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 days with no reply to the points raised in this discussion:

[edit]

As it appears there's no opposition and we can move the category relating to the Britain Red Ensigns to Category:Red Ensigns (United Kingdom) (or maybe Red Ensigns (Great Britain)?). If there's any objections or corrections let them be heard within the coming day please. Regardz, Orrlingtalk 07:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that Category:Red Ensigns (British Empire) or Category:Red Ensigns (Royal Navy) should be more correct concerning the birth of the specific red ensigns. --Foroa (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"British Empire" is good Orrlingtalk 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]