Talk:Gallery of flags by similarity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Gallery of flags by similarity 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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). |
[edit] ("Tribar")
What does "Tribars" mean in the context of this article? I don't see the threeness involved. Now if you had Latvia and Austria, then you might call them "tribars"... AnonMoos 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I reckon so... "dual-bar", "two-bar", "bibar" (!) instead...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- A stupid cut-and-paste error I think -- thanks for catching it. I replaced the section heading with "bicolor", as in Gallery of bicolor flags. Cheers, --ScottMainwaring 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] [1]
- (rv - please note disclaimer in introduction: "organized by the number of main colors (disregarding, for example, colors in emblems)")
I felt the examples I moved involved three colors (albeit one passively) regardless of emblems...? Perhaps the disclaimer needs rephrasing/extension...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On the one hand, on the other
I'm beginning to wonder if spectra rather than sections might be more effective in this article... For instance, looking at the flags in #Blue at hoist onward, the following groupings seem as viable:
 |
 |
 |
 |
...etc |
| Poland | Chile | Texas | N. Carolina | |
|
Canton with star |
Canton becomes |
Star emblem in band, |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
...etc |
| Puerto Rico | Cuba | W. Papua | Liberia | Malaysia | USA | |
|
Triangle/stripe colors swapped |
Triangle becomes band, |
Band becomes canton |
Star in canton becomes sun-moon emblem |
Multiple stars |
...in other words, create bands of flags where slight differences between each (of any kind) mean the first and last flag in each band might be significantly different from each other...? Intriguing article, David Kernow (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fascinating idea, but I see a couple of problems. First, I'm not sure that these complex morphing relationships of similarity can be captured along a single linear dimension; seems like branching would be required, tree-structures or some such, probably beyond the representational capability of Mediawiki. Second, I think this invites many more direct and indirect relations of similarity to be represented here, leading to this page ending up listing every flag in the world; but the intent of this page (originally a section of text on the Flag page) was to list the most "egregious" examples of similarity in flag design, as a kind of cautionary resource for readers interested in flag identification. --ScottMainwaring 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough; I agree re the linear limitation and page intent, plus the POV ordering (i.e. I recognize that other folk might prefer different orders). I noticed, however, that the layout I evolved above does bring more flags into view, so perhaps something like it might be used on the page...? Thanks for your feedback, David (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- PS Perhaps not appropriate for this page, but maybe one NPOV criterion for a linear list of similar flags would be year of introduction...?
- I agree; apparently the flag of Chile doesn't fit in whatever category the flags of Texas and North Carolina are in, but Texas and Chile have very similar flags, so I put it back in. Eran of Arcadia 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TOC
Have created a custom TOC as the automated TOC was becoming lengthy. Unfortunately, as there doesn't seem to be an automated equivalent at present (cf here), this will need to be updated manually whenever first or second-level headings are added/amended/removed. Hope this acceptable, David Kernow (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Re the threads above, anyone else reading this page...?
- I think the new table of contents is much improved. Thanks! --ScottMainwaring 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White space
I'm finding when I look at the page that there's a lot of flags which look odd because they have a white section which isn't differentiated from the white background - particularly the Red/white flags section. Some have a thin red line round the white which gives the shape of it, but others don't, meaning that section looks almost like a selection of red rectangles in various shades and positions. I notice on the main "Gallery of Flags of Sovereign Countries", that all flags have some delineation of their whitespace - would it be possible to link to these images instead? Or, failing that, to background the flags on this page in grey? Brickie 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've replaced the gallery code with the table code from Gallery of sovereign-state flags, for blue and white stripes and red (or maroon) and white: horizontal bicolors. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-23t22:36z
[edit] Germany/Belgium
I think that the German/Belgium flags are confusable. --Maddie 67.10.90.85 06:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusable is POV. We should change this to, Gallery of similar flags
--Steven X 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but how is "similar" any less POV? I'd argue that "similar" is actually more vague; flags can be similar (e.g., in their symbolism) without being confusable, but not vice-versa. --ScottMainwaring 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well "similar" is somewhat less POV (In my opinion).--Steven X 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see the thinking, but reckon "confusable" captures this page's use more effectively. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Commonly confused", perhaps?--Steven X 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lithuania/Ibagué/Ærø
What about these three flags... they seem "confusable" (tricolor yellow/green/red) to me and apparently a few others (see Talk:Flag_of_Lithuania#Similar_flags).
Here they are...
--Gleezus 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Unfortunately, we don't have a nice .svg of the Ærø flag. Valentinian T / C 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More US states?
Would it be a good idea to include more US state flags? Personally, I find the following rather confusing:
- AL&FL
- GA&MS
- CT, ID, KS, KY, ME, MI, MN, NE, NV, NH, NY, ND, PA, SD, UT, VT, and WA. Biruitorul 20:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Many of them are very similar to each other, so it sounds like a good idea to me. The most similar flags are probably all the dark blue flags with a badge, but the other examples are good too. Valentinian T / C 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Acadian flag
The Acadian flag should be added beside the French flag in the blue, red and white vertical tricolors section. The flag represent the Acadian people of the Maritimes provinces of Canada. The flag is basically a French flag with a golden star in the blue band. An image of the flag can be seen here: Acadian
- I've added it. Valentinian T / C 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
This page strikes me as being in stark violation of our policy against original research, Wikipedia:No original research. Can the confusability of these flags be backed up by sources which identify them as such? If not, I intend to nominate the article for deletion. Picaroon (t) 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Picaroon. This article is a structured list of graphically similar flags. I'm not sure where, at heart, your objection lies. Here are three possibilities -- could you let me know if any of these are what you meant?
- 1) If your objection is that an editor's adding a red/white vertical bicolor flag (for example) to the appropriate section of the list (and thereby asserting its similarity to the existing members of that section) constitutes original research, this strikes me as too loose an interpretation of that policy; this is no different than working to make any article in wikipedia more complete, and such activity I think is to be actively encouraged rather than discouraged, though it obviously requires some critical and creative thinking on the editor's behalf.
- 2) If instead you mean that to be included in the red/white vertical bicolor section, a flag must have been previously described in published text as such, again, I think this is setting too high a standard for what verifiability means in this domain. Flags are often depicted (graphically) more than they are described (textually) in publications; i.e., the fact that a flag is a red/white vertical bicolor can be shown rather than told. Every depiction included on this page needs to be backed up by a source, true; but that documentation is a matter for pages describing the flag or image file -- to repeat the citations here would just clutter up this list, wouldn't it?
- 3) Last, if you mean instead that "confusable" is a subjective term and thus that the criteria for including or excluding any particular flag from any particular section of the list is insufficiently precise, then I think I can agree, though the solution is to clarify the criteria rather than to delete the article, isn't it? If the article were entitled "List of flags by graphical similarity", would that help?
- --ScottMainwaring 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- The issue is that two flags which could be confused by one user could be easily told apart by another person. If reasonable people could disagree, citations could be requested, and based on your comments, I don't think citations could be found. Furthermore, there is no set criteria for what, exactly, qualifies as "difficult to distinguish", which is why I consider using graphical similarities to make this list original research. I guess a rename would allay my concerns, although then the issue of how similar the flags have to be to be considered "graphically similar" would come up. Picaroon (t) 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Melbourne.gif
Image:Greater Melbourne.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Charlotteflag.png
The image Image:Charlotteflag.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
