Talk:Canadian pale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Canadian pale 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). |
[edit] square or just rectangular?
The Flags of the World website defined a Canadian pale as: "The central stripe (or pale) in a 1:2 vertical triband/tricolour whose internal proportions are 1-2-1, and which is therefore square - as in the Canadian flag." What is the source of the alternative and looser definition used in this article? Should not this published, more strict definition be mentioned? --ScottMainwaring 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Something must have got taken out of context with that quote for FotW, since the term is in common use on its mailing list to refer to any central vertical stripe on a flag where the ratio of the stripes is 1:2:1. However, looking through the list history of FotW (and its 150,000-odd messages) is a daunting task, so I am not currently able to find the references there, but several websites list the official blazon of the St. Vincent flag (Per pale azure and vert, on a Canadian pale Or three lozenges two and one, nearly touching, vert). Given that the pale is originally a heraldic term (first created in 1964 - see reference here), to describe it as square is misleading, since it has been adapted to use on flags from the standard shield shape. The important dimension is thus the width in comparison to the other stripes (i.e., what makes it different from other pales), not its shape within the flag. Look at it another way. mass-produced Canadian flags are often in th ration of 2x3. The central white stripe on them is clearly not square, but is it a Canadian Pale? Grutness...wha? 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, that certainly sheds some light on the matter. Personally, I hope some attributable reference can be found for the narrower definition, since to my eye, there really is something strikingly special about the "square flanked by half-squares" that you get when you combine a 1:2:1 ratio of vertical stripes with an overall 1:2 flag ratio. Was not the designer of the Canadian flag the first to discover this particular aesthetic trick? If so, that historical fact might provide some support for a stricter definition. Under which one could tell the mass-producers of incorrectly proportioned Canadian flags: "Stop! You're making Canadian flags without Canadian pales!" :-) (Or to put it another way, would we be talking about "St. Vincentian pales" if the flag of St. Vincent preceded that of Canada? I doubt it -- the 1:2:1 ratio just doesn't stand out on that flag like it does on Canada's.) --ScottMainwaring 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've initiated a bit of discussion on this on the FOTW mailing list - looks like there's two schools of thought over whether it's only for 1x2 flags. I'll mention any outcome here. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: The FotW dictionary of vexillology is being amended - the new definition will make it clear that a 1:2:1 ratio vertically is a Canadian Pale irrespective of the overqall dimensions of the flag, but adds the caveat that it should normally only be used for Canadian flags. I shall amend the WP article to follow that. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Grutness. A question of clarification: Is the FotW community researching primary sources to make this determination, or are they considering themselves to be a primary source and are taking a poll or something like that? Sounds a bit like we are waiting for FotW to issue a ruling, and that this exercise is more about prescription than description... --ScottMainwaring 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of the members of FOTW and people closely associated with the group are also either authors of the relevant primary sources (e.g., Graham Bartram) or members of more authoritative flag organisations likethe Flag Institute and FIAV. While they/we can't be guaranteed to get it absolutely spot on every time, chances are that a definition of a term as used on FOTW is also going to be that used in various primary sources. Grutness...wha? 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] flag of norfolk island
the flag of norfolg island doesn't belong here, its central band occupies less than half the width. 84.90.16.239 (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- As explained in the text, there is a "hard" definition and a "soft" definition of a Canadian pale. The Norfolk Island flag doesn't qualify according to the hard definition, since - as you point out - the panels don't have a 1:2:1 ratio. It does qualify under the softer definition, though, since the central panel is larger than the side panels. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
