Talk:Flag of Myanmar

New national flag

The latest news (but not definite & from unknown source) : People heard that the color of Myanmar flag will change. It will be three colors: Red, Green & Yellow. Red represents bravery, green refers to agriculture, & the yellow for unity of all the Nationalities.

I found a New Light of Myanmar article (English) about the new flag. The link is here, "The Flag is marked with green, yellow and red stripes in a proportionate ratio. On the left end of the green stripe at the top of the Flag is a large white star directing upwards" (quite a long title).--Hintha 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to include the 8 major races (Bamar, Shan, Chin, Kayin/Karen, Kayah/Karenni, Mon, Kachin and Rakhine/Araken) national flags or state flags and the meanings of them. Each state or division has its own flag or emblem and should be included in the page of Flags of Myanmar. Texxexx 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was pissed when they decided on that, maybe those from Malawi supplied the grog. Any complaits about this flag? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the flag of Lithuania whith a star on it :)Игорь Бродский (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Third Burmese Empire (Konbaung Dynasty)

Dear Kintetsubuffalo,

According to the FOTW source, the flag of the Third Burmese Empire under Konbaung Dynasty should be a white flag with peacock (the version in FOTW depicted a red peacock, my svg version was based on that version), not the red swallowtailed flag with black cross. In the last paragraph of the section "Mid 19th century" of the historical Burmese flags topic in FOTW stated that "The flag shown here is the standard of the royal artillery who were mainly Christian Portuguese descendants (hence the cross)." In addition, there are some flag charts in 1860s (contemporary to the reign of King Mindon of Konbaung Dynasty) showed the peacock flag as the flag of Burma. Please see the Gallery below. Burma in these charts spelled "Birmah"

• 
  Flag chart "National and Commercial Flags of All Nations", c.1868, published by Colton, (G.W. & C.B.) & Co. (cilck to enlarge)
• 
  Burmese flag in 1860s (cropped from National and Commercial Flags of All Nations, Colton, (G.W. & C.B.) & Co.)
• 
  Flag chart "Johnson's New Chart of National Emblems", c.1868, published by Johnson, A. J. (Alvin Jewett) (cilck to enlarge)
• 
  Burmese flag in 1860s (cropped from Johnson's New Chart of National Emblems)
• 
  SVG version of the Burmese peacock flag (based on FOTW source)
• 
  A Burmese flag in mid 19th century - in the FOTW website state that is "the standard of the royal artillery who were mainly Christian Portuguese descendants"

Following these flag charts, I think it should be replaced the red-swallowtailed-and-black-cross flag with one depicted a peacock on white background.

Regards,

--Xiengyod (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Burmese resistance

The flag of the Burmese Resistance should be here somewhere, as the article says, the modern flags originated from a "red flag with white star". 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be called the Anti Fascist Organization or AFO flag. How the modern flag relates to the AFO flag is unclear. The AFO flag was red with a five-pointed white star in the upper corner. The new flag has a large star in its center. 70.234.226.237 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

War Ensign

Anyone know why this flag isn't the war ensign (or rather any citation for the usage guide?) I've checked the modification history and no explanation was given when the usage symbol was added. If this isn't the war ensign then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.18 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to FOTW it was this [1] as of 2002 or 2003. No idea if it's still in use with the new national flag. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

War and army flags of Burma

The war flag and the army flag of Myanmar respectively, according to the War flag article. Should they be inculded here?

KPUFFERFİSH^Ṫ•Ċ 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Myanmar Army shows this as the army flag of Myanmar. Which is correct?KPUFFERFİSH^Ṫ•Ċ 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Flag

Myanmar Air Force Flag in 2008

Has the flag of the Myanmar Air Force remained the same through the recent changes?Xufanc (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of any flag besides the national one in the constitution. Unless we hear otherwise we can probably assume that it remained the same. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

State of Burma flag

Can I ask, what's the source for the WWII flag currently in the article? FOTW's depiction matches File:Flag_of_Burma_1943.svg [2] Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The flag of FOTW is based on speculation, it is not an actual depiction of the flag (read the details). The peacock does not match any of the historical depiction of the Burmese peacock. And if you are going to go with FOTW, there is another depiction of the same flag as well. Gryffindor (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The flag on FOTW is based on an image from a Japanese newspaper, not "speculation". And yes there is a second depiction on FOTW but the flag you keep inserting in the article doesn't match that one either (it has a different ratio and the peacock is entirely green). If you don't have a source that indicates that that specific peacock design was used on the 1943 flag then your image is original research and should not be included in Wikipedia. If you do have a source then by all means post it here and we'll talk, but until then don't revert the image. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am noticing from http://www.2bangkok.com/wwiipropaganda.shtml has a different design of the peacock. However, I do know the guy personally that supplied the Japanese papers so I can ask him for scans (also some historic flags of Japanese colonies, such as Manchukuo, does have construction details at the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To Orange Tuesday: did you take a look at the image of the Japanese newspaper that the designer of FOTW based his drawing on? It is barely discernible, only some peacock on the three colours. The design of the peacock is left completely in limbo. So the image of the peacock that you try to keep on using is completely invented. The other image however is using the peacock based on the flag of British Burma, which dates back to the Konbaung dynasty, and which use was continued by the State of Burma. There is however no proof, even from FOTW, that the flag you want to use is the actual correct depiction. Choose your words carefully before accusing anyone of original research. Gryffindor (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the newspaper in question is not online. There are links to stamps and to propaganda pamphlets, but those aren't the source of the FOTW drawing.

As for the historic peacock, do you have any source which says that the State of Burma did use the same design as the British colony did? We know they used a peacock but there's no reason that they would necessarily use the same design that the British did.

Furthermore, I don't believe there's any evidence of that specific design being used on a flag by the Konbaung dynasty. When the badge was designed in 1939 it was based off coins from the Konbaung period, not flags. And even then the design was modified. You can see a coin here: [3]. The peacock is similar to the one on the British badge but not identical. And even if it was, we have no evidence that the version of the peacock from the coins was the same as the one on the flag, because the only source we have for the flag is old western flag charts and they show a variety of peacock designs: File:Burmese_peacock_flag_(National_and_Commercial_Flags_of_All_Nations,_1868).JPG File:Burmese_peacock_flag_(Johnson's_New_Chart_of_National_Emblems,_1868).JPG. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Konbaung dynasty used a peacock in colour on white ground, see here [4]. The peacock in colour was then continued by the British and then the State of Burma. How exactly the peacock looked like, you don't seem to know, and we have to find definite proof yet. It seems for the moment that the appearance is speculative based on coins, newspapers, sketches, etc. The image from FOTW is non-canon as is indicated in the explanation on FOTW by the drawer himself, and it is not the official version. Gryffindor (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, I know they used a peacock. I linked to the exact same image you did. But there's a difference between A peacock in general and THAT peacock specifically. You're claiming that the State of Burma used the peacock in your version because that was the peacock used by the British and the Konbaung. But we don't know that it was used by the Konbaung because no Konbaung flags survive. All we know for sure about that specific peacock is that it was used by the British between 1939 and 1948. That fact alone does not tell us anything about how the peacock looked on the Konbaung or State of Burma flags.

Yes, the evidence for FOTW's design isn't perfect, but at least it's something. You haven't provided a single source which backs up your design. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you agree that there is no specific design for the peacock of the State of Burma. The peacock however that is here File:Flag of the State of Burma (1943-45).svg correlates closer to the other version given in FOTW, the historical drawing of the flag of the Konbaung dynasty File:Burmese peacock flag (National and Commercial Flags of All Nations, 1868).JPG, the flag of File:British Burma 1937 flag.svg which is again shown on FOTW here [5], [6] and here [7] or Rupees used during that time File:1_Burmese_rupee_front_side_1948.jpg. The design you insist on using is a one-shot drawing by a single user that in no way resembles the other designs. Where are your other sources apart from the only one you have provided? Gryffindor (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen, we're all in agreement about what the peacock on the British Burma flag looks like. That is not in contention. What is in contention is the STATE OF BURMA FLAG. The one which was used from 1943 to 1945 by the Japanese puppet government. You need to provide a source FOR THAT FLAG, SPECIFICALLY. You can't just say "Oh well that peacock design was used by the Konbaung and the British therefore the state of Burma must have used it too." That is an assumption. You haven't provided any evidence at all to back up that assumption. A second-hand image from a Japanese newspaper in 1943 is not much but it is the closest thing we appear to have to an actual depiction of the flag. As for the "other version" on FOTW, that is a 1:2 ratio flag which again has a different peacock design than the one on your flag, so you can't say yours matches that one either. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your argument. The references have just been provided in my previous post, did you look them up? You on the other hand have only the one single image from FOTW to show for as a "source". That alone is not enough. Gryffindor (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are what your references tell us:

• [8]: The British colonial governor's flag used a peacock like the one on your flag.
• [9]: The British colonial ensign used a peacock like the one on your flag from 1939-1941.
• [10]: The British colonial ensign from 1945-1948 was the same as the one from 1939-1941
• File:1_Burmese_rupee_front_side_1948.jpg: The Burmese rupee in 1948 (during British rule) had a peacock with a similar design to the one on your flag.

All four of these sources are about the flag during the period of British rule. They are NOT about the flag during the State of Burma period. Those are two entirely different regimes which used different flags, and there's no reason to assume that those flags contained identical peacocks. If you're providing a source, it has to be for the flag of the state of Burma period specifically. You need to prove that the State of Burma used that peacock design, not the Konbaung dynasty and not the British. Just because a certain peacock was used on SOME flags does not automatically mean it was used on ALL flags. I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated earlier that FOTW shows another version of the State of Burma flag, which depicts a natural peacock that has closer resemblance to the one used during the British rule, than the the other version which is highly stylised and purely speculative based on some newspapers where you cannot even see the bird proberly. You need to provide more than just that one FOTW source of the fictive image you keep on insisting on using. If you cannot, then leave it and stick with the natural depiction as used during the Konbaung dynasty and British rule. Gryffindor (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are different types of "natural peacocks" though! this flag [11] and this flag File:Flag_of_the_State_of_Burma_(1943-45).svg are two entirely different designs. The first one is at a 1:2 ratio, the circle on it is much smaller, the peacock is all green rather than multi-coloured, the design of the wings and the feathers aren't as geometric, there's clearly three "tiers" of feathers in there, the head is dark rather than light, the peacock isn't standing on anything. It's entirely different. It's not a source for your design.

Also we don't know that "you can't even see the bird properly" in the newspapers since the newspapers aren't online for us to see. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So can you or can you not provide an alternate source for the image you want to keep on using? What can be discerned from all the sources, is that 1) the flag of the State of Burma is today's yellow-green-red with a white circle that holds a Burmese peacock in colour. 2) How exactly the peacock looked like is subject to debate. I think on these two points we can agree upon. Gryffindor (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Development

Okay I've been digging around and I think neither of the images we've been fighting over is actually right. On 21 June 2009 a message from a guy called Dan Lloyd was forwarded to the FOTW newsgroup. It read: "Hi I was wondering if you could help me with identifying a flag I have. I found it in my fathers stuff he brought back from the war in the pacific. Any help would be great. Thanks." This photo of the flag was attached: [12]. And it was turned into this image on FOTW: [13] (they tucked it away on a different page so I didn't notice it at first) Since this image is based on a colour photograph of an actual WW2-era flag from Burma, I think it takes the cake as the one with the most evidence. If I drew up an svg version of it would you be willing to put it on the page? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If I can be honest, this was really a fight over nothing that lasted for almost two months. I think, with as small as this article is, all designs for the State of Burma flag should be displayed. Once we all agree for something, we really need to stick with it (and the page will be unlocked). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, Orange Tuesday do not backtrack on the previous discussion. You are providing a picture of a flag that was brought from Burma during the war, and then used on FOTW. So what? Where exactly is this flag from? When was it made? What is the status of it? Was it shown or published anywhere to verify it? Where is the proof? You are basing a new argument on a random picture and then claiming that "neither of the images [...] is actually right". That is not scholarly but original research. Gryffindor (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

SVG here: File:Flag of the State of Burma (Stylized version).svg. I'm have no objection to showing multiple designs on this page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the questions posed above: where are your second and third references concerning this particular image? Gryffindor (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I expected to provide you with three sources for every image when you're not going to hold yourself to the same standard? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Showing one image from some random website with no way of verification and then claiming it as a serious source of the official flag? Do you have other sources or not? I have provided mine already in my previous postings. Please don't forget to answer the other question above, if we can at least agree on those two points. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

All you've provided are sources for how the peacock looked during the British period. You are ASSUMING that the State of Burma used the same peacock as the British did. THAT ASSUMPTION is what you need to provide a source for. If you don't have a source that backs up that assumption, you do not have a source for your flag. And yes, of course I agree to those points. We were never debating those points. The question is: what did the peacock in the centre of the flag look like between 1943 and 1945? Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, whatever. I give up. we're going in circles. I am fine with the compromise of having more than one image on the page, and I think if nothing else the images I have provided are sourced enough to be shown on the page alongside the one you made. If that doesn't work for you then we need to get a third opinion involved because the discussion as it stands is not going anywhere. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well we can at least agree on the two points then, that is good. I don't understand why you have to bring in that strange third image if we agree that the peacock was in colour and most probably life-like. I don't have a problem with showing different versions (although I would like to avoid it if possible, less it becomes too confusing), I do have a problem however with showing versions that do not come close to what newspapers, money from that era or preceding flags were showing and that border on original research. I hope you can understand that argument I've been trying to point out. Gryffindor (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see that specific point about the peacock being in colour. No, I don't necessarily agree with that. All we can say for certain I think is a yellow-green-red triband with a peacock in the centre. I'm not sure it was necessarily life-like either. One of the websites that FOTW got its original info from talks about the peacock's feathers being "redrawn in geometrical diamond-shape patterns" during the Japanese puppet state era. [14].

You talk about money from the era, but again, you're talking about money from the British era and not the State of Burma era. Rupees from the Japanese puppet state didn't have peacocks on them at all ([15]) so that doesn't tell us anything.

Just because a preceding flag uses an image doesn't mean that the following flag will use the same image. Take Cambodia for an example. It has always had an image of Angkor Wat on it, but the specific depiction that was used during the French protectorate [16] (1863-1942, 1945-1948) looked radically different than the depiction that was used during the Japanese puppet state [17] (1942-1945). I'm not necessarily saying that the State of Burma DIDN'T use the same peacock as the British, but I don't like asserting that they DID without any kind of evidence to back that claim up. Do you at least understand what my concern is here? Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, look at what I just found though: [18]. The Burmese kyat in 1944 DID have a naturalistic peacock on it, but it was different the British one. BUT scroll down to the bottom. See that 100 kyat note from 1945? That's the exact same peacock as on the photo. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the previous image File:Flag of Burma 1943.svg you keep on insisting on using uses a peacock in natural colours, so now you are saying you don't agree? I'm confused. Most of the sources (in colour) we have seen so far point to a peacock in colour, not monochrome. And let's not get into a tanget by comparing Cambodia with Burma, those are two very separate cases. What can be established is that the Konbaung dynasty used a peacock in colour. This was continued by the British. It is safe to assume that the State of Burma picked on that symbol and used it as well. It is interesting though to see that there are kyats with a version that you have pointed to earlier, well done. Now the question is however what status that particular peacock had. Was it maybe only the symbol of the central bank? When was it introduced, only in 1945 for a short period? Can you find any other sources? What does it say on the money, we need someone who can read Burmese. Gryffindor (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying "no it definitely didn't use a natural colour", what I'm saying is "we can't say it definitely DID use a natural colour". We have multiple depictions of the flag, and some of which use natural colours and some of which do not.

As for the peacock, it's NOT safe to assume that the usage was continued. I'm sorry, it just doesn't logically follow. For one thing, it's not at all clear what the Konbaung flag looked like. I can point to half a dozen different images that all use entirely different peacocks, none of which are the same as the image currently on this page: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. And if you read text descriptions of the Konbaung flag many of them talk about a RED peacock (monochrome, no less). Secondly, as I've said before, the usage of the peacock wasn't "continued by the British". There was a gap of 54 years between the fall of the Konbaung dynasty in 1885 and the re-introduction of the Burmese peacock in 1939. When the State of Burma was established in 1943, that peacock had only been in use for the PAST FOUR YEARS, and it wasn't even used as widely before the war as it was after the war (If you look at pre-war Rupees for example they don't show any peacocks at all.) I would certainly accept that it's POSSIBLE that the State of Burma used the same symbol as the British government, but we have no reason to ASSUME they did. And those assumptions certainly shouldn't take precedence over evidence to the contrary.

As for the central bank theory: seriously? Why would the central bank's symbol be on a flag? Why, for that matter, would it be featured so prominently on a banknote? Come on, I think it's pretty clear that the geometric symbol was at the very least an official emblem of the State of Burma during 1945. And between the banknote, the photograph, and the source which mentions the "geometrical diamond-shape patterns", that version of the flag has way more evidence than any other design we've found so far. How many more sources do you expect me to find? Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The peacock was used during the Konbaung dynasty, either in colour, in red, in a red circle or in a red disk, it is not completely clear. What seems to be clear is though that a peacock was used. That was then continued by the British (however much time lay in-between is not relevant to this discussion) and then again by the State of Burma. Why do I ask if it could be the Central Bank? Since we are on the topic of rupees, just taking a look at this banknote: without knowing anything about the country's flag or emblem, would you be able to discern what symbol was used? The one on the left hand corner or right hand File:100Rupees.png? And what does it say about that country's flag? Gryffindor (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

yes yes I know A peacock was used by the Konbaung and A peacock was used by the British and A peacock was used by the State of Burma, but you have been claiming that THE SAME peacock was used by all three of those governments. We have no evidence for that at all.

This central bank talk is completely ridiculous. It's not like I found the bank note and then made up an image of the flag to match it. I found a photograph of a surviving flag and a banknote issued by the government itself and they both have the exact same design on them! Does that not strike you as pretty substantial evidence? What about this is unacceptable to you?

As I said before, I am fine with having multiple images on the page including yours. But if there is enough evidence for your flag then there is certainly enough evidence for mine. I don't know what else I can say to convince you of this. Bring in an RFC or a Third Opinion or something if you can't accept having both on there. Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Look I'm sorry if I've come off as antagonistic during this discussion. It wasn't my intention. I've been in a high stress mode lately and it's probably bleeding over into by talk page behaviour. I'm going to unwatch this page and take a break from editing for a while. Do whatever you feel is best. Orange Tuesday (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, I hold no grudge. I did not say that the banknotes you provided are not legitimate, I actually even said "well done" if you read the above message I posted. I am just saying that we have to be careful with what we use as "fact", since we don't have an official document or law where the appearance of the flag is described. So basically we have to go with assumptions. The design you have found looks fine to me, but it only appears on the money of 1945. I am going to assume that most probably the design of the bird became too complicated for many, that is why they took a more simplified design towards the end of the war, maybe to rally more support within the population. The svg you created is good, however you need to modify the peacock to look exactly like the one on the money (the low-resolution photo is a start, but it's hard to discern details). The yellowish colour of the bird can remain. You also have to change the dimensions of the flag. cheers Gryffindor (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peacocks and Flags

The peacock on the 1943 Burmese Flag was almost certainly NOT a continuation of the British version of the Peacock from the before the war. The idea that there is "one" consistantly used depiction of a peacock on Burmese flags ia false. In late 1941, the Burma Indpendence Army created two different Peacock Flags. One was Peacock in center, green background, red bolts coming toward the center. That Peacock (which I have personally seen in Rangoon on the original Flag) looks nothing like the British version of the Peacock. The flag was a white background with a red stylized peacock (totally different again) in the center. I've seen a black and white photo of that flag.

British Intelligence reports from 1943 (collected in the book "Burma During the Japanese Occupation" p. 14) describe the 1943 flag as follows: "the Dobama tri-colour, yellow, green and red horizontal bands with the Peacock-in-its-Pride colored in green, blue and red in a circular inset in the centre".

The Burmese-written multivolume history of the Burmese Army (volume one) shows two different 1943 flags with different peacocks in center. One of them is close to the version on flags of the world with wings down but colored red-green-blue. There is a second one with wings up and half-circle of feathers also with peacock in red-green-blue. The same book has a picture of the 1941 Burma Indpendence Army (green background). The peacock in that flag is a stylized illustration close to what was on the real flag but exactly the same. I think in general the army illustrations are stylistically close to what was on the flag but don't represent the exact design of the peacock. I somewhat think that any depection of the 1943 flag short of a photograph is either going to be a version prepared for printing or some form of simplified illustration.

I've yet to see anything I consider a trustworthy representation of the 1943 flag. But the one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that the peacock on the flag is not a contuation of any previous Burmese flag. The politics of Burma in 1942-1943 would have absolutely rejected any use of any part of the British flag. The British version only came back in 1945 when the British administration returned.

I'm not proposing any change to the article. This is all informational.

70.234.226.237 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Konbaung Dynasty Flag

There is no definitive version of the Konbaung Dynasty flag. There only exists written accounts of what it looked like and illustrations based on those written accounts. The article should make it clear that whats presented is NOT the actual image of the flag from that era but a recreation. 70.234.226.237 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New flag, colour green

Thanks for the illustration of the new flag with the big white star. But maybe the colour green should be a little bit darker? Pantone 361 http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx?c_id=6831 colour #34b233 http://www.colorhexa.com/34b233 91.61.200.226 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We are using Pantone 361 already, but the coated version. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan Flag

I've removed this sentence because it's poorly written: "During the 2008 Summer Olympics,Because the Blue sky,white sun and a Wholly Red Earth was banned by the Beijing authorities, so the fans of Chinese Taipei national baseball team use 1974 Flag of Burma as the Blue sky,white sun and a Wholly Red Earth to cheer Chinese Taipei national baseball team up.[9]". I'd revise the content but the source is in Chinese, so I can't be certain if the rewording is done correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Flag of Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101024201904/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_593613.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_593613.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110429004112/http://www.fotw.net/flags/mm-old.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/mm-old.html#oldflag
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131213010623/http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2010/11/10/myanmars-african-flag/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2010/11/10/myanmars-african-flag/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406101349/http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar/myanmar-flag-emblem.htm to http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar/myanmar-flag-emblem.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406101349/http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar/myanmar-flag-emblem.htm to http://www.myanmars.net/myanmar/myanmar-flag-emblem.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Unicode emojis

Mention which ones of these flags have Unicode emojis. Jidanni (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Myanmar Presidential Palace.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)