File talk:Flag of Brazil.svg

Pumbaa80, you edited the page to say that "the dimensions do not match the ones on the official construction sheet from the Brazilian Flag Law", what dimensions are you talking about? --TigerTjäder 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the dimensions are really not the official ones, it could be corrected, isn't it? --Tonyjeff 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Orientation of the stars

According to several pictures of the flag of Brazil on flickr [1] all stars should point straight up, with no rotation. If no one comes back with some reason to keep them rotated I'll upload a new version with straight stars. --TigerTjäder 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Categ.

Please exchange the cat. "Stars in art" with "flags with stars". I think, the page can be set to unprotected now (after how many years?). --Mattes (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I replaced the category. The image was protected because it's used in several thousands of pages across Wikimedia, making it a sensitive target for vandalism. Patrícia ^msg 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for your quick reaction! Bye, --Mattes (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

International

{{de|Flagge [[:de:Brasilien|Brasiliens]]}} Brasiliens --Perhelion (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This file has been used in: Silke (2010-06-15). "Fußballzauber Brasiliens bleibt aus!". Promi Flash.

Upload of new version

I'd like to request the unprotection of the file above, because I've found the official file from the Brazilian government here: [2]. I think that it is always preferred the official version than the one made by users.

According to the description of the file, the supposed source is this one, a page that no longer exists. Also, it can be noted that the file has been modified by users, what may be contested due to the official version.

Note that the source of the file is no longer valid, and the file I want to upload is the current one on the government's site. Thanks. Tonyjeff (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, file unprotected. odder (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The current version was drawn according to the measures given on law 8.421. I believe that if the file provided on the government's website and one constructed according to the law differ, we should ignore the one in the website and go with what the law says. I think the description just hasn't been updated and the last revision to have been based on the one from that site is this one. The description should be updated to say that it was drawn from the specs given in the law. --TigerTjäder (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agree with Tjäder and I am going to compare both files. Thanks! Tonyjeff (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tjäder, I've checked all the measures according to the law. There are some very little differences (less than 1mm if the image is set 20x14cm), which may be caused by some factors. I think these differences, if they should be considered, are not enough to reject the official file. I am going to upload it and wait you to check these minor mistakes. Thanks. Tonyjeff (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The main differences I see between these two versions are the colors, the position and size of the stars and letters and the position of the white band. The colors and the position and size of the stars and letters aren't specified very well in the law, so I have no problem with those. The position of the band, however, is precisely specified in the annex of the law, and it seems the version from the government website places it a bit higher than it should be. As you said, it's a very small difference, but if it were up to me I'd keep the old version. The old version also has about three times less code. As the difference is small I'm not gonna oppose if you wanna go ahead and put the government version, but remember to update the files mentioned under "Dependent Images". --TigerTjäder (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tjäder, I appreciate your understanding. I really think that, since this link is spread all over the Wikipedias, I think it would be important to use the one considered "official". I am going to contact the government to check why there is the difference. In the meantime, what about keep your file as an alternative, with a link here? Cheers. 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to upload it as an alternative file, I can't think of any place that would use it. If we end up deciding to come back to it later we can just revert. --TigerTjäder (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the flag has been modified again. I had agreed to using the version from the government website even with it being different from what is specified in the law in a few points. However, I see no point in using a version that is different from both the law and what is specified in the law. The current version fails to meet the law in a few points:

• The size and position of the white band are off;
• The letters in the band are too small, and all in the same size. The "E" is supposed to be a bit smaller than the rest.

My last version also had a much smaller and more readable SVG code and had no precision problems. The current revision uses numbers rounded at apparently arbitrary precisions, while my version uses a coordinate system that makes sure no coordinates have to be rounded or truncated. So, summing it up: I'm fine with either a version that is made fully according to the law or the one from the government website. If you take the version from the government website and try to fix it up to make it closer to the law, then there's no point in starting from it. We already have a version that conforms to the law. I'm willing to change colors or other details that aren't specified in the law to make it closer to the government one, if you guys think it should be done. TigerTjäder (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also used at. . .

Manual listing of other resources not polled by the 'used in' function.

• OpenStreetMap User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Epsilon Canis Majoris

Yes, another problem... The w:Epsilon Canis Majoris is described as a third size star in the law n. 8.421/1992, but in the file this star is drawn as a second size star (as it really is: a star with 1.5 of apparent magnitude). The others stars seem to follow this "rule", i.e., the size agrees with apparent magnitude. Originally the star size was (also) related with the state surface area, but it's not true since 1960. A história dos símbolos nacionais by Milton Luz (one of the best book about this subject available online), also reports Epsilon Canis Majoris as a second size star (page 90). Giro720 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So does the star need to be fixed? What similar star size is Epsilon Canis Majoris supposed to be? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured it out from the code. However, I noticed a problem with the beta cao maior star where it was a size 3, but the law you mentioned above is size 2. I am going to fix all of the stars. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)