Talk:Flag of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
To-do list for Flag of Poland: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Expand the lead Y Done
    • Convert bulleted lists into paragraphs in the "Flag protocol" section Y Done
    • Add more sources and inline citations Y Done
    • Start Naval ensign of Poland and Polish Navy jack Doing...
    Archive
    Archives

    /Archive 1


    Good article Flag of Poland has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

    Flag of Poland is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject.
    Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
    Poland Portal
    Flag of Poland is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
    Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
    ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
    News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

    Contents

    [edit] Rights to fly the flag

    Added a bit about the law forbidding to fly the flag. Since the fall of communism it was a dead law. And state bodies even encouraged to fly the flag. It was changed in 2004 only after some large newspapers dug it up. IMHO this clarification is needed as people who visited Poland in the years between 1989 and 2004 could see polish flags on many private homes and businesses (for instance on May 3rd and november 11th) and on union demonstrations etc. And noone was aware of the law (including the police). The articles in 2003/4 started beacuse some police officer in a provinsional town dug up the law and started harrasing some businesses. After the articles it was scraped immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.66.1 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    WHY IS SOMEONE UNDOING THE ADDED TEXT. THAT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THE WAY THAT PERSON WANTS IT, WHEN YOU LOOK ON FOR INSTANCE PICS FROM STATE HOLIDAYS IN THE 90s! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.66.1 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    I removed that bit again because it was unsourced. You are welcome to put it back in the article, iff you find a reliable source that supports it. I'm not saying that what you wrote is untrue, but to keep Wikipedia standards, we must only include information that a reader may check in outside sources. Also, it would better, if you find some more details: what was the title of the newspaper that wrote about this law? Can you cite a specific article? What was the name of the policeman who used the law to harass businesses? Also note that the fact that the Polish flag was flown on national holdays does not mean that the law was not obeyed because it did allow people to fly the flag on those days. It was only forbidden on regular days. — Kpalion(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    I had to remove it once before due to citation issues. Pretty much, as Kpalion said before, we need sources for that kind of statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] CIE

    Isn't the LAB spec in L* a* b* or H* C* L* form, rather than x y Y? ButterStick (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Please take a look at this attachment to the Coat of Arms Act that defines the national colors. Here's an exact translation of the specs:
    Trichromatic color coordinates x, y, their component Y, and the permissible color difference ΔE in the CIE 1976 (L* u* v*) color space established according to the CIELUV formula at illuminant C and measurement geometry d/0
    I must say I'm not an expert in colorimetry, so I don't know if it makes sense or not, and whether coordinates in the CIELUV space should be xyY, Luv, Lab or HCL. — Kpalion(talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed in text, and fixed for CIE xyY links in general. The Polish law states the coordinates in CIE xyY while giving the allowed color range using the CIELUV color space (this is the Delta E part) which unlike CIE xyY allows for measuring distances in a perceptually reasonable way. --Mareklug talk 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Colors?

    I have heard that there was a long debate on Polish wiki w/ regards to colors - something about official documents being mistaken and enforcing a digital gray color instead of expected white. Could this be commented upon? Perhaps this even is notable enough to merit inclusion in main article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    This is already summed up in one of the footnotes to the article. Basically, the problem is that that legal specs are in the CIE color space, so they must be converted to RGB to display them on a computer screen. The conversion is not entirely straightforward and an assuption must be made about the white point. For the purpose of creating a digital image of the Polish flag, the white point was assumed at 6500K which correponds to a hue described as "Broad-Band Daylight Fluorescent". The resulting RGB coordinates are: white E9E8E7 and red D4213D. Note that the resulting shade of white is darker than web white which is FFFFFF (this is regardless of the assumed white point; the white point affects the hue, but not the brightness). As I noted above, I'm not an expert in colorimetry, so if you want more details about this, please ask Polish WP user DeJotPe who made the calculations.
    Some Polish Wikipedians disliked the resulting visual effect and complained that the flag shown in Wikipedia was gray-and-red rather than white-and-red. Several alternative variants of the image were proposed, notably a "web" variant (FFFFFF, FF0000), and a "compromise" variant (FFFFFF, D4213D). After a long discussion, it was agreed that the "normative" variant (E9E8E7, D4213D) should be used in the article about the Polish flag itself (actually, the image at the top is a photograph of a real life flag), while the "compromise" variant should be used for flag icons in other articles. Currently, the same solution is in place in the English Wikipedia (agreements at Polish WP are not binding here, but why not copy a good solution?).
    I don't think this deserves mention in the main body of the article. The flag is legally defined as a "piece of cloth ... hoisted on a flagpole," so you shouldn't expect the law to provide color specs in RGB, since an image displayed on a computer screen is not a flag anyway. — Kpalion(talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    Plus, I believe that Wikipedia politics should not be aired out in this fashion on the article. There is a policy like that, I believe it is called "Avoid self references", but I have no clue where the exact page is. Gruntbrat (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. — Kpalion(talk) 23:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    This has been discussed to death on Wikimedia Commons as well as elsewhere. Anyway, the assumption of 6500 K as the white point is appropriate; the sRGB standard (which web content has to follow anyway), iirc, specifies 6500 K (or something along this line...) 202.89.153.149 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just added a section below, which reveals a new citable source addressing the grayness and showing coordinates for proper display of the flag on monitors. It was written by a physicist, so we can use it as plausible and avoid self-reference issues altogether while gaining a valuable outside source. --Mareklug talk 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] GA review

    GA review (see here for criteria)

    Very nice and informative article. Just a few small details that need to be covered

    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose): b (MoS):
      Very well written, just the lede needs some expansion
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
      I've identified a few places that I feel could use some source citations, but overall the use of sources is excellent.
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a (major aspects): b (focused):
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
      Fair representation without bias:
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars etc.:
    6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
      a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
      pictures are great, with nice captions
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:

    Details:

    • The lede seems a bit skimpy for the article. There is nothing in the lede about the flag protocol, nor when the flag is used by most folks. Also missing is more detailed information on the background of the flag and nothing on the last section, the related and similar flags.WP:Lede gives a guideline of about 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article of this size.
      • Y Done Please let me know, if this is still too short. — Kpalion(talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Design section, National colors subsection, second paragraph, needs a citation for the information in the paragraph. Y Done
    • Same section subsection, both of these paragraphs are very short, only two sentences each. This gives a choppy feel to the subsection, and you might consider expanding the paragraphs or merging them together. Y Done
    • Same section, Variants subsection, first paragraph, second sentence. It might be better to start the sentence like "Instead, the flag is defined.." which gives a better flow to the paragraph and makes it explicit that flag is being discussed in the second sentence. Y Done
    • Same section, subsection. Last sentence needs a citation.
      • Y Done The citation is an obsolete version of the Coat of Arms Act, but it's the only online version I could find with the relevant attachments. The specs for proportions were not repealed by subsequent amendmens. — Kpalion(talk) 02:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Usage section, Flag flying days subsection, at the very least each paragraph needs a citation, even if it repeats the citation in the previous paragraph. Specifically, the last parts of the paragraph on Polish Flag Day need a source, the list of days above that needs a source, the list below needs a source,and the next to last paragraph needs a source. Y Done
    • Flag protocol section, first paragraph. Do footnotes 2 and 3 cover the entire paragraph? If so, they can go at the end of the paragraph. If they don't, the last sentence definitely needs a source.
      • Y Done They do cover the entire paragraph. — Kpalion(talk) 02:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Y Done
    • History section, national cockade subsection, first paragraph needs a source citation.
      • Question. This paragraph is meant to be a summary of the entire subsection, so I'm not sure if it requires citations since sources are given later in the subsection. — Kpalion(talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • History section, Twentieth century subsection, Second paragraph needs a source citation. Y Done
    • Same section and subsection, the last paragraph is short. Might not hurt to expand it a bit, but this is not something to hold back the article over.
      • N Not done I couldn't find any more interesting information on this topic in my sources. — Kpalion(talk) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Same section, shades of red subsection. Last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source citation. Y Done
    • Related and similar flags section, the last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source citation. Also the second paragraph and the last paragraph. Y Done
    • The shades of red comparision chart, might you left align it so it aligns with the shades of red subsection? Y Done

    Overall, an excellent article. Just needs a few source citations and some expansion on the lede paragraph and a few very small tweaks. I enjoyed reading it!

    I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for reviewing the article, Ealdgyth, and I'm glad you liked it. I started to go through your list of suggested improvements and did the easy ones. For the rest, I'll need a little more effort, but I will be quite busy and away from my sources during this week. Could you extend the on-hold period until the end of next week (i.e. February 3), please? — Kpalion(talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    No problem at all to extend. About the sourcing question above, I am not sure about the use of summary paragraphs in sections, and as a general rule, I figure if it's possible it could be contentious, I slap a citation on it. So, to be safe, go ahead and source it. Especially as it's got sources later down. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Looks great! Sorry, was busy watching the American Football Super Bowl, so didn't notice you were ready until just now. Pasing it now! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

    I put the current status in the Article history template as GA. There isn't a status for Current GA that was a FAC but didn't get listed. If I screwed up, please fix it. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Darkened white calculation for the Polish flag confirmed off Wikipedia

    In a 1 May 2008 Polish newspaper article "Szyjemy flagę narodową" (translation: Let's sew up the national flag) in the daily Gazeta Wyborcza, its author, physicist Stanisław Bajtlik, included a computer-generated image of a darkened-white and crimson Polish flag as closely approximating the official CIE xyY values with their allowed variances specified in CIELUV color space as mandated by the Polish law for Poland's national colors. He also provided decimal RGB color component values for the flag's white (240, 227, 237) and its red (212, 29, 58). This is a first independent confirmation and verification of calculations and resultant image generation performed on the Wikipedia. He also names the persons (and interviews one survivor) involved in crafting the law in 1980. This information should be added to and elaborated upon in the article, particularly as augmenting the reference number 4, as it constitutes a valuable source previously sought but until now, unavailable.

    The article contains the following passage, a comment on the arcane nature of the official color description, which identifies beyond doubt that the correct computer monitor output is the intended outcome by the article author: "Dlatego postarałem się podać prosty, chałupniczy sposób na uszycie sobie prawidłowej flagi narodowej na monitorze komputera." ("That's why I ventured to give a simple, home means for sewing up for ourselves a correct national flag on a computer monitor.") --Mareklug talk 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

    Marek, I don't understand your last edit. Does it mean that the coordinates are in one color space, CIE xyY (1931), but the tolerated variance ΔE is in another space, CIELUV (1976)? — Kpalion(talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly. CIE xyY is convenient and often used for specifying colors themselves, but as a space lacks meaningful metrics for comparing colors (color difference). CIE introduced in 1976 CIE Lab and CIE Luv to approximate perceptual nonlinearity and allow comparing color distances. This has been refined over the years. Curiously, the Polish law uses a little-used variant of the 1976 Delta E, which is a straighforward application of Delta E as defined on CIE Lab space, only using u and v in place of a and b parameters. Hope this makes sense. The color difference article on Wikipedia does not even mention using the u and v parameters in the simple 1976 Delta E, so I made sure we always mention that fact in conjunction with the Polish official specs from 1980. --Mareklug talk 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. I reworded some bits a little without changing the meaning in the National colors section. I also decided to remove the technical details from the Shades of red section as this is already covered in detail in the other section and instead added the info about Mr Sobczak being the author of these specs, citing the news article you linked to above. — Kpalion(talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Bajtlik DeJotPe white/ crimson white/ red
    F0E3ED E9E8E7 FFFFFF FFFFFF
    D41D3A D4213D DC143C FF0000
    While it's clear that the conversion from CIE to sRGB done previously by DeJotPe on plwiki is close to Bajtlik's result, I think it's worth noting that they are not exactly the same. You can compare the variants on the right. DeJotPe is the current "normative use" flag, while white/crimson is the "symbolic use" flag on Commons. Having an external confirmation is nice, but it also brings a problem, which variant to choose as the normative one -- DeJotPe or Bajtlik? This has not yet been decided on plwiki. --Wanted (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)