Talk:Flag of Poland

Meaning

Perhaps it would be worth to mention in the article the meaning commonly associated to the colors of the flag: white meaning honor and red meaning blood - to fight for the honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.102.207 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.
  •  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.  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.  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.  Done
• Same section, subsection. Last sentence needs a citation.
  •  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.  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.
  •  Done They do cover the entire paragraph. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)  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.  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.
  •  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.  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.  Done
• The shades of red comparision chart, might you left align it so it aligns with the shades of red subsection?  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)

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)

Polish Colours

I have no source to back this up, but I do believe the Red and White were NOT hereditary, but a statement, where white meant Peace and red meant War, as in "Peace over War". I can't conform this, but I think that in the Napoleonic Era, a war Polish Flag was read with the bird on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.219.65 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but what you think or believe is irrelevant here, in Wikipedia. What is relevant is sources, which you don't have. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

I am sorry, but what a f. is that?!: http://www.hrono.ru/heraldicum/flagi/home.htm described as a "Flag of Poland in Kingdom of Poland period time". I see no Polish Flag there. I don't speak Russian, but I recognize there a Russian Flag and Russian Language on this site. Remove that link, please.

Regards, rmh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.21.11 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC?

It might be an idea to start a Request for Comment to get wider input on the colour issue. Thoughts? mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no colour issue, it's a content issue. Previously, we only showed two PNG versions of the flag, which match the official legal codes. However, the problem in that is two-fold. One, we try and use SVGs where ever we can, and two, even the Polish Government don't always follow those codes, using pure-white flags, which match the SVGs. Therefore I have made a comprimise position seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Poland&oldid=435129893, which allows both versions to be shown. However, UserKpalion believes these files can't be shown no matter what, and is trying everything he can think of to keep the SVGs off this page, even though they're used everywhere else. There is nothing wrong with showing both versions, th official legal codes AND the SVGs, and another user has already agreed upon my comprimise edit. user:Kpalion is being disruptive due to a personal distaste for the SVGs which he views and inferior. He has been rude and pushy, even on this talk page, against the SVGs being used at all, even when others disagree with him about it. Fry1989 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the talkpage, Fry! Yes, this is the right place to discuss possible changes in order to reach a compromise before implementing these changes in the actual article. Glad you finally found it!

To the point: I don't think there is a need to include two illustrations of the same flag; one based on official specifications and another one based on... I don't know, pictures found in the Internet? If the format is an issue, then please go ahead and convert the PNG files with correct colors to SVG; it should be fairly easy to do. If the colors are an issue, then please find a reliable source that supports the "pure white" variant of the flag; if you don't, then it's original research. If a possible mismatch between the legal specs and reality is an issue, then we have photographs of actual flags, so everyone can make comparisons for themselves. If something else is an issue, then please let us know what it is. — Kpalion^(talk) 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

TYour snark aside, we use SVG flags whenever possible. There is a tonne of proof, whether you want to call it "original research" or not, that the flags used (even by the Government) are white. The main issue you have, is that the SVG version of the Arms don't match the PNG version in gradients and shadows. You're acting like that has nothing to do with the problem, but there are many conversations you've had where that is your real problem. There's nothing wrong with the current compromise, which two users have signed on to. We cannot pretend that the legal shades are explicitly followed, when there is plenty proof they aren't. Fry1989 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep repeating there's plenty of proof, but you haven't provided even one citation of a reliable source. — Kpalion^(talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're acting like hundreds of pictures aren't proof enough. There's even pics of it flying from the Sejm building where the flag is white. If the Polish Government doesn't follow the rules explicitly, how can you expect the rest of the Polish public to do so? And you still haven't given a reason why my compromise isn't acceptable, and that we can't show the flag both under the official legal shades, and as commonly used with white. Fry1989 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pick one picture out of those hundreds and post it here so that we can see how white the white in that picture is. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Flying atop the Sejm, Inside the Sejm Chamber, Indoor use, Use by the Polish Navy, and Polish naval ensign. Fry1989 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now please tell me, how many shades of white are there in these photographs? And how do you tell which shade is the correct one? Or better, how can a photograph of a fluttering flag prove anything in regards to the correct shades of national colors? — Kpalion^(talk) 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're really not getting this, so let my try and explain it really simple. There are the official legal codes, and THEY are the "correct shades of national colors". But in practice, most flags are WHITE, and white is white, any other shade would make it grey. So, the compromise is, we show BOTH the official legal codes, and the commonly-used white, not varying shades of grey, not pink, not any other colour. That shows the legality, and the reality. Now, explain why that is not acceptable. Fry1989 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fry, you're saying there is only one shade of white; I'm saying white is a color like any other and comes in a infinite number of shades. So does grey, and you can't tell exactly where white ends and grey begins; in fact, what one person calls a shade of white, another person may call a shade of grey and both will be right. Now what the Polish law says is not "the national colors of Poland are white and red, except the white is actually grey". It says, "the national colors of Poland and white and red, and these are the shades of white and red we're gonna use".

What you perceive as white or grey may depends on context; the white stripe of the Polish flag may seem grey to you against an even brighter white background. Against a black background it may seem perfectly white. Another thing to take into account is that a flag (any flag, but the Polish law says it explicitly) is not a rectangle displayed on a computer screen, but a piece of fabric. A computer screen emits its own light, a piece of fabric does not, so the latter can never be as brightly white as the former. You can do an experiment yourself: take a piece of white fabric and hang it next to your computer screen displaying an empty Word document. Is the piece of white fabric the same color as the screen? If not, is it white or grey? — Kpalion^(talk) 06:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. There is only one shade of white. Mixing it with anything else taints it and makes it something else. Mix it with black, it becomes grey, mix it with red, it becomes pink. Fry1989 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. How will you explain this: Category:Shades of white? Or how will you explain the fact that on the photographs that you referenced, on the supposedly white stripes of the flag, virtually every single pixel is different from the neighboring ones? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NONE of the colours in that category are actually white by definition. They are white mixed with another colour to make a shade. Beige is not white, Cream is not white, they both have some brown mixed in, and Anti-flash white, even with "white" in it's name, actually has some green mixed into it. As for the different pixels, that's easy to explain. It's called depth and shadow. Depending on how the light hits the fabric, how bright it is, whether part of the fabric is infront of another part making the sun-light have to pass through it twice, all these things effect how bright the fabric appears. It doesn't change the colour of the fabric, just how it appears. Fry1989 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you tell when an object that seems to be white is actually white and doesn't just appear to be white? — Kpalion^(talk) 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Take Polish naval ensign for example. Different parts of the fabric are illuminated differently, some parts have shaddows where the sunlight doesn't hit it as much. But even with those differences, look at the white part of the flag in direct sunlight, white as can be, and then look at the eagel in the coat of arms, not hit by the sun and instead in a shadow, but it's still pure white. That is how you know, when even differently illuminated parts of the fabric show the same thing. Fry1989 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shades of white

Take a look at the image on the right. I copied the brightest fragment of the photograph you just mentioned and placed it against a background of HTML white and "Polish statutory" white. You can try it yourself, if you suspect I manipulated something. Are you still saying that it is indeed pure white? It looks rather yellowish to me. Is is really whiter than the "statutory" white? — Kpalion^(talk) 06:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're still not getting it are you. That is loks yellowish SHOWS I am right. You cut out a part of the fabric, which was hit differently in different parts by the sunlight. Sections of it which were hit less have a shadow, causing it to look darker, while part of it hit directly does indeed make it look white. I have nothing more ot say to you. You're SOOO obsessed with keeping the SVGs off this page, that you're completely missing that you have yet to argue against why we cannot have the official legal codes, AND the flags in pure white, which they are commonly made. Until you try and make an argument for that, I consider this debate closed, and that my compromise stands, showing both the legal shades, and the white SVGs. Fry1989 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an RfC after all. It's you who's not getting it. What you call "official legal codes" is what we have a citation from a reliable source (namely, the Polish law) for. What you call "flags in pure white" exist only in your imagination. I asked you to provide sources and all you provided where photographs which don't prove anything. There is no reason to include your imaginary flags and there's no reason for what you call a compromise. Until you try and provide a reliable source for your "pure white" flag schematic, I consider this debate closed, and that the correct, legal flag schematics are the only ones included in the article. Thank you. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are so incredibly unattentive. Calling them "official legal codes" acknowledges that they are the official colours of the flag as set out by Polish law. On the other hand,.the flag is commonly made in pure white. You have NOT been able to prove they aren't, instead you're more obsessed with "go-n-where" arguments about fabric and how it appears when the sunlight hits it differently, and comparing it to a computer screen. You have NEVER made an argument why we can't show both, which is what this WHOLE thing is about, instead you completely skip it over. You are disruptive, and vandalizing this page for your personal opinions and hatred for the SVGs in white. Continue, and you will be reported. Fry1989 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1. You haven't proven that the flag is commonly made in "pure white".
2. It's not my task to prove that it is not. Polish legal specifications are all that matters anyway.
3. I have made an argument why we can't show both, but I'll repeat: the "pure white" version is not supported by reliable sources.
4. As I said several times, I have no issue with the file format. If an SVG file is created with correct colors, I'll be perfectly happy to use it in the article.
5. Go ahead and report me. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have given plenty of proof, which you have chosen to ignore. You have been reported, and any future edits will be reverted for vandalism. Fry1989 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion request

"Statutory flag"

"Pure-white flag"

As there are only two users involved in the discussion, I have a requested a third opinion, a simpler conflict resolution process than RfC. For the benefit anyone who would like to provide a third opinion, here's my summary of the conflict as well as some background information:

1. A flag is, by definition, a piece of died fabric. When illustrating a Wikipedia article about a flag, the question arises of how to represent a flag on a computer screen. One approach is to use photographs of actual flags, another is to use idealized schematic diagrams. Both are used in many flag articles. The discussion here is about the choice of a correct diagram for the flag of Poland.
2. The colors of the flag of Poland are, according to Polish law, white (upper stripe) and red (lower stripe). The law further defines the exact shades of these colors as coordinates in the CIE 1976 color space. These specification may works well for fabric, but in order to create a flag diagram for display on a computer screen, the specification need to be converted into the sRGB color space.
3. Two diagrams have been proposed, which differ in the shade of the upper (white) stripe.
4. The diagram supported by Kpalion (let's call it the "statutory flag") uses shades of both white and red that have been calculated from the legal specification. The source and necessary assumptions used in the calculation are given in a footnote to the article.
5. The diagram supported by Fry1989 (let's call it the "pure-white flag") uses the same shade of red as the "statutory" one and pure HTML white.
6. Fry1989 argues that there is only shade of white and that the upper stripe of the "statutory flag" is grey, not white.
7. Kpalion argues that white, like any other color, has many shades and the upper stripe of the "statutory flag" is indeed a shade of white.
8. Fry1989 argues that photographs of actual flags prove that the upper stripe in real-life flags is actually white and that legal specifications are not followed in practice.
9. Kpalion argues that colors in photographs are not homogeneous (there are shades and highlights) and that they do not prove anything.
10. Fry1989 has not provided any citations of reliable sources that would support the "pure-white flag" or that would claim that legal specifications are not followed in practice.
11. Fry1989 has come up with a compromise solution, that is, to include both the "pure-white flag" (in the infobox) and the "statutory flag" (in a section on legal specifications). Kpalion rejects this solution on the grounds that the "pure-white flag" is not supported by reliable sources.
12. Kpalion has come up with a compromise solution, that is, to present photographs of real-life flags in the infobox (thus showing the "reality" regardless of legal specifications) and the "statutory flag" (in a section on legal specifications). Fry1989 rejects this solution because it doesn't include the "pure-white flag".

If I have missed or misrepresented any of his points, Fry1989 is welcome to provide his point of view. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, Kpalion has set it out very well. just a couple points I'd like to add. First, my stance is not strictly a "pure-white versus the statutory shade set by the Goverment". My stance is that, per the current version of the article, we show both the official colours set by the government, AND the version with pure-white, as the flag is commonly produced and used (even by the Polish Government). Whereas (per previous edits), Kpalion's stance is that we show only the official statutory-coloured version, even when the State Flag is not in SVG for that, and with so many sources showing that even the Polish Government doesn't follow their own rules much of the time. I specifically made the current version of the page as a compromise between those in the Wikipedia Community who (through numerous edits in the past) want either one or the other. Sadly, Kpalion's version does not accomplish such a compromise. I simply can not see any reason against showing both the official legal colours, and the colours most commonly produced-and-used. Fry1989 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Okay, interesting dispute, but I think we've gotten a little off-topic here. The business of Wikipedia is not in what we can perceive or argue through common sense, but what we can prove through use of reliable sources. Fry1989, you have provided as proof that the flag commonly flown in Poland uses a shade of pure white numerous pictures of flags flown using bright white shades. That's all well and good, and to me, I will admit, it just looks white. However, those pictures are primary sources, which according to policy cannot be interpreted without the input of a published secondary source. In this case, in order to create our own image and assert that it was the commonly flown flag of Poland, we would need a source stating something to the effect of: "While the legal definitions of Poland's flag demand a shade of off-white, flags flown are almost always pure or bright white." There is, thus far, no such source; using pictures to attempt to prove this doesn't stand by policy, and constitutes original research. We could argue the physics of color, the definition of white, and our individual perceptions all day, but these points are immaterial. I would be happy to revisit the issue if a secondary source can be found, as it's immediately apparent that the shade called for in the sources is not the shade being flown, but until we can prove this to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy, I have restored the previous revision that does not include the bright white flag.—— chro • man • cer  20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And what kind of source could you possibly expect me to find??? The Polish Government has a law on the colours. I don't think they're gonna publish anything that contra-dicts that. All we have are pics, which show a VERY different story. Fry1989 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible reliable secondary sources may include findings by Polish government agencies or court rulings that would say that the law on national colors is not being followed; or a publication by a respected vexillologist that would say the same. The whiteness of the white stripe in the pictures is in the eye of the beholder though. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{3O}} as a WP:3O already came here. I think everything has been said here already. As I've understood, no-one has secondary sources for their claims (correct me if I'm wrong), which I think is hard to find. IMO, when it comes to something in writing, just use "white". Period. Regarding the real images, one is bright and one is shaded in the current state, so keep it that way. Do you guys have a problem with the images in this section? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have returned the SVG flags for a few reasons. Fact is, the absolute absurdity of this dispute being put aside, there is absolutely no reason not to use the SVGs as is the not just the "common practice, but the exacting practice on every other article. I am not aware of a single other article anywhere where the SVGs are not used in favour of photographs because one user dislikes the SVGs that Commons provides. That user needs to either gain a proper consensus to not use the SVGs, or go to Commons and get them changed to a manner that is satisfactory to him (which will also require consensus and a lot of sourcing for changes to be accepted). If the SVGs are removed again, I'll take this to a larger dispute resolution forum because it's just silly that we're even entertaining this "compromise" when it has no practical reasoning or educational gain for the article. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1. A flag is, by definition, a piece of fabric hanging on a pole - a physical obejct, not an imaginary colored rectangle. The best way to represent the look of a physical object in an encyclopedia is a photograph of one or more samples. The place of diagrams is in the Design section.
2. There is nor rule to use SVG diagrams in the infobox. It's common practice for sure, but Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy.
3. The sources for statutory the statutory color scheme and explanationof their conversion to RGB for the purpose of creating diagrams for Wikipedia are already in the article.
4. I will be happy to take this discussion to a larger dispute resolution forum, if need be. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Kpalion you can repeat your points all you want, but you have absolutely failed to gain any consensus for the exclusion of the SVG files. It looks like I will be forced to take this to a dispute resolution board. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Because the above dispute discussion, as well as the included Third Opinion, have been unable to bring about a resolution to this problem, I have raised it to the Dispute Resolution board. All here are invited. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Which version was banned?

Right and obligation to fly the flag' subsection, under the subheading 'Flag with coat of arms', it says "the ban on using the flag without coat of arms has been lifted".

But the only mention of any ban that I can find is "flying the flag with coat of arms was, from 1955 until 1985, punishable by a fine or arrest for up to one year." (Emphasis mine.) Is one of these a mistake?

Also, under the subheading 'Flag without the coat of arms' is the sentence "Organs that are required by law to fly the national flag without coat of arms on or in front of their official buildings" (emphasis mine). What that would mean is that they are required to fly the flag, either without the coat of arms, or, with the coat of arms and in front of the buildings, which seems like a strange requirement, so I wonder if the word 'or' is a mistake. CarrieVS (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Before 2004, the law did not allow ordinary citizens to use either flag, but punishment for unauthorized use was possible only in the case of the variant with coat of arms and only until 1985. As to the second point, the flag may be flown either on top of a building or in front of it. Your questions suggest that the wording is not very clear. Would you care to suggest ways to rephrase these fragments to make them less ambiguous? — Kpalion^(talk) 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made minor changes to these two fragments. Please let me know, if they are clearer now. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Poland. 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/20080227175814/http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/SEJM/056/2149.pdf to http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/SEJM/056/2149.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211124346/http://www.zycie.czest.pl/modules/show.php?id=1438 to http://www.zycie.czest.pl/modules/show.php?id=1438
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025211530/http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=7278 to http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=7278
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190459/http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=70 to http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=70

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) 00:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)