Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom-L (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 12 June 2011 (Your arrogant attitude combined with your lack of knowledge and seemingly a lack of ability to read your own sources, is the problem. I do not need to apologize for defending the truth. I will revert this a single time, just to make my point.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not archived. After discussions are deemed complete, they will eventually be removed

Thai Royal Flags

Hello, someone asked me to finished them a longtime ago but because of the complexity and the large number of them I decided to only do three more: the Crown Prince's, Princess Sirindhorn's and Princess Chulabhorn's. They are still in my todo list. Sodacan (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Governor Flags

First off, great work on the governor flags! I don't think that they belong at the top of the article - given it is about the state flag. However, they definitely deserve their own section or page. Sorry about putting them in the See Also section. I meant for this to be a temporary solution until I could do some research on the symbolism. I created a new section for each governor flag in each of the articles. The descriptions need a little work. ...okay, alot of work... :) Cheers! -DevinCook (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A challenge

Fry - If you're feeling up to it, you could perhaps provide Misplaced Pages with a free version of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets flag and the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets flag. The Royal Canadian Army Cadets don't have any flag image uploaded at all. I simply have neither the time nor the skills to do it myself. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the badges are beyond my abilities. I'm still pretty basic with Inkscape. I do agree though that we should have these flags added, and have some mates on the Commons who I can request of. Fry1989 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see; well, you're still better qualified than I.

BTW: I left a note about the layout of List of Canadian flags at the article's talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Very Excellent! I love flags myself, I collect them in real life.... My state flag is rare OHIO... I believe its the only one like it in the world... though I could be mistaken... Keep up the Work --HRH.zadock (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Louisiana

The Flag of Louisiana has a new official design. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/11/state_officials_unfurl_newly-d.html I also received word from the Secretary of State's office that this is the NEW official design of the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.80.119 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all we need. Appropriate changes will be made to SVG. Fry1989 (talk)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Finnish Blue

Fry you'd better check the Talk:Military aircraft insignia page a little more clearly. If you see there is The Bushranger who concurs, and yes even Letdorf. If you look closely Letdorf states he like Finland Roundel Border, but selected the LIGHTER version I uploaded. as he say, and I quote "Clearly, there's a lot of variation in the roundels here. The one I think most closely matches what the roundel is supposed to be, though, is this one" So please Fry click on his link, & dwnload what he has suggested. Tell me what do you SEE! Regards Jetijonez (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger ALSO agrees you DO NOT have consensus, read it yourself. Fry1989 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Again the score is still 3 to 1, in favor of light, its only matter of time my dear friend. Jetijonez (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's incredible that you can take one part of someone's statement, and completely ignore the other half. He said you don't have consensus, that means dark blue stands. Also, there's another user who has reverted your change back to the darker blue, so not, it's not as simple as you think. •

Well again you’re not accepting the fact the they agree it should be a "Lighter Blue", now when is it considered consensus, well that’s the real question. As the the "other" editor who agrees with you, well he or she needs to join the discussion to make a difference. Fry I don’t want this to turn into another one of your edit wars like this one. Your stepping on one to many toes here, you should be alittle more careful. Some examples to remember . Jetijonez (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it stepping one someone's toes to keep the consensus version. That is the policy here, and YOU are the one violating it. Fry1989 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Antarticia flags

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=HErmelo alot of these flags are very dubious. Care to replace? User:Zscout370 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

None of those flags are real, they're fictional. But I don't understand what you mean by "replace". What is it you wish for me to do? Fry1989 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Louisiana Still Not Updated

Here's the super high resolution official image from the Secretary of State's website http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/Other%20Services/LAFlagArtRGB.jpg

Also if you could here's the seal as well

http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/Other%20Services/LA%20Seal%20(color)%20version%203.png

I would do this my self but I have absolutely no idea how to work with SVGs

Thanks--Thegunkid (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the High-res images. I'll try and see what i can do. Fry1989 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fin Flash Fix

Ok Fry, I think we've been going about this all wrong. On the "Fin Flash" artcle I want to just convey to the reader that there is more to the flag, fin flash, roundel...etc than they may not know or understand. I have notice that when I go to the "Flag of Russia" The info box allows the reader to see an outline on the flag, and it enables them to see that white section on top is part of the flag. Yet when you click on the image it's not there. (Probably cause it's a info box) Even on some roundels there is a light out line as seen Here and even you have added one Here (check out the file updates). So with regards to the outline on the "Bahamas" Fin flash, I think we need something to let reader see the entire flag outline, and you’re the one I have to thank for pointing that out, through your argument. The "Fin Flash" on the White airplane has an outline, because it's up against a white color scheme. Exactly my point, of course we don't need it so dark.....And yes the ratio you have is fine.. It would be great to also fix, "Siberia, Pakistan, and Russia"...thoughts ? Jetijonez (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The general way would be to put in the image display code the word border, for exmaple "Image:Standard of the Governor of Rhode Island.svg|140px|border" produces that flag with a thin border outlines, as you can see in this template (click "show", flag on right), however, that doesn't seem to work in a gallery format. I do not now how we can apply this to the Fin Flashes gallery. With roundels it's different. It's difficult to make out the difference between an outer white section and "nothing", but with flags it is better understood what parts are white and what parts are "nothing". Fry1989 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll give it a shot - FYI I tried to get those Flag Icons back in Talk:BRICS only to have an Administator, start hassling me, on other artcles of mine, beware Jetijonez (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the BRICS issue more complicated, as you can see below. I've dealt with that use in numerous talkpages and discussions about his behaviour, and he simply doesn't get it. Fry1989 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alberta LG Flag revert

Just wondering why you reverted the flag at http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Flag_of_the_Lieutenant-Governor_of_Alberta.svg This one is more accurate than the one you reverted back to. Magu (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All the LT Governor's flags we have follow a common design, that is why. Fry1989 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how the flag looking entirely incorrect can be considered "right". What are the details of this "common design" that deems wrong flags to be right? Magu (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And how is it "totally incorrect"? The flag is the Shield of Alberta, on a blue field, circled by 10 maple leafs. The shield is not "incorrect", it's just different. Fry1989 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not what is flown in Alberta. Therefore, incorrect. Maybe at one time it was, but it most certainly is not now. So, if it's deemed that "wrong" is right then I will leave it alone in all of its glorious wrongness. http://www.culture.alberta.ca/about/emblems/docs/Emblems_Booklet_2005.pdf, and http://corporateidentity.alberta.ca/downloads/GoaCIM-1.0-Brand.pdf (Starting at 1.4.8) show the correct current Alberta shield. Magu (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Emblems look different depending on the manufacturer, and I can guaruntee you the flag of the LG is no different. The Shield is not standardized, and therefore it can appear differently. Fry1989 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well interesting you are saying that but the Alberta flag act says otherwise as in the above links. As such http://www.flickr.com/photos/pembina/3315084753/sizes/o/in/photostream/ and I can provide more photos indicating that this is what is used. As far as I can determine the older style (the original upload) is pre-1982. Using the old flag is about as correct as using http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Flag_of_Canada-1868-Red.svg to represent Canada in 2011. So, just because some flag manufacturer makes it does not mean it is correct. Regardless of all this, none of what you said explains why the flags "follow" a common design that I deviated from. What "element" of my uplaod does not follow that design? It is the same blue field and same 10 maple leaves with the same stylization. Magu (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. It gives explicit measurements for the flag, including the position of the shield, but the arms themselves are not under a standardization program, as are, say the seal of Texas. The shield can vary, as long as it follows what is called the blazon, and the version I reverted to does that. Now, the common design we are employing for these flags are the shape and size of the shield. Your version alters that. That is why I reverted it. You asked why, and I'm giving you my reason. Fry1989 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder then why didn't you just say that before, anyways, when I get time, I will adjust it so it fits inside the blazon template so it will be acceptable. Magu (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The blazon isn't a template. It is a description of an emblem, of what it consists of. Both versions of the shield, follow the blazon. They just have different shapes. Fry1989 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm no vexxillologist, (but have been getting interested in it) so I bow to you on that matter, but as long as it fits within the shape template it will be acceptable? Can the black border show or should that be hidden? Magu (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Luxembourg

There are no reasons why it is not acceptable. Hating a certain style is not a valid reason. I've seen you bullying Ssolbergj with a similar issue, on his own file, even abusing your admin powers for it. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, several things. 1: I am not an admin. 2: I do have never bullied Ssolbergj, I have had disagreements with him over accuracy, but that does not come to bullying. 3: There ARE reasons why the versions you want to use are not acceptable. The simplest being that they do not look like the arms of Luxembourg as they really are. We have versions that are accurate, and they are the ones that should be used. Fry1989 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad for the first part, I seem to have mixed two users. And you did bully him, you kept reverting a certain file of his, an edit war just so the file would get protected. I have voiced my opinion on that file's talk to give a counterweight to that wretched excuse for consensus. But now, again to Luxembourg. Both versions are accurate, I don't see how you can say they are not. I suggest you read a bit about heraldry. The one you prefer does lack details in the order, which is an argument for using the Katepanomegas version. The colors of the version you prefer are very strange. The argent is pure white, while the Or is dark and brownish. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have found more inaccuracies. I have reverted your revert, and clearly stated all the ones I noticed. I will copy it here: In the greater coat of arms, the order lacks details. In the middle version, it should not appear at all. The arms of the monarch are also inaccurate. It has a wrong supporter and in middle version order should not appear.. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Weird" is not an excuse to call something wrong. The rules of heraldry are ancient, and not always followed today, but for some reason you heraldists seem to have the mentality that whether or not a country's national symbol follows them, you have the right to force these ancient rules upon us. I had a similar problem over tyhe Coat of Arms of Kenya, where the government explicitly said "White", not "argent", yet a fellow heraldist of yours continued to revert to a greyish silver in the name of the "rules of heraldry", and an admin had to become involved. Now, the two versions we are arguing over, are both accurate when it comes to the blazon, but not when it comes to the nuances. The shape of the shield you want to use if wrong, The crown is too big. The lion is shaped differently from the actual government version. All these are minor but important differences. Lastly, over Ssolbergj's file: Whether you like it or not, it was inaccurate, and I gave sources to prove it. Artistic license is one thing, but you don't have the right to push inaccuracy in an academic and encyclopedic atmosphere. We're here to educate and inform, and for that reason we should strive to be as accurate as possible. Fry1989 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As for your "update", all those things an be fixed, it's not a reason to revert beck to the versions you are pushing. Fry1989 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry, you are the one who is pushing inaccuracies in this case. I said that the colors were weird, yes, but I didn't give it as an argument. It would be better to change the brownish gold to clearer gold, instead of making the white grey. I've looked to the arms, and you were technically right in that matter. The grey wasn't that dark, so it wasn't that big of a deal. Anyways, I have listed, in the italics text, many valid arguments. They could be fixed yes. The have been there for a long time, and sometimes you yourself added these errors. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have never added any errors other than making the white sections white, instead of grey. You have no "errors" that you can claim I added, other then your "rules of heraldry", which I am not bound by. Fry1989 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry, to be clear, in heraldry the blazon is everything. As long as a given depiction follows the blazon, it is correct. This is how it works. If you keep running into the same problems regarding heraldic accuracy (as it seems you do), it is time to consider that perhaps you are wrong. I suggest you speak with Tamfang, who is probably the single most knowledgeable heraldist onwiki. → ROUX ₪ 06:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

How hard is it for people to understand what I am saying, I've laid it out very clear: I KNOW that as long as something matches the blazon, it's ok, what I am saying IS when the Government of a respective country has stylized their arms a certain way, we should try and reflect that as best we can. The two concepts are separate, despite people trying to co-mingle them. Either way, it has become more complicated then that. it has now come to a user assuming that just because he's well-versed in the rules of heraldry, he knows more than me and he can just surpass me as if I'm an invalid person to make an argument. That's a hideous attitude that needs to stop, AND it just so happens, that as with the Arms of Kenya and another heraldist with the same attitude (who claimed that the Kenyan arms have to use silver, and not white, even though the Kenyan government explicitly said white), I have now proven THIS user wrong as well (who is claiming that right-sided supporters can not have a double-tail), with Luxembourg Government sources (showing that they can AND DO). Fry1989 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Very hard, because you are saying obvious errors. You are removing the tails of supporters, and supporting a file that lacks detail in the order. Your anti-heraldic and anti-luxembourgian law attitude "needs to change". Adelbrecht (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)