File talk:Flag of the United States.svg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
[edit] Discussions from w:Image_talk:Us_flag_large.png (which no longer exists)
[edit] Proportions
- The executive order listing proportions can be found here [1]. Look to the far bottom of the page
--Jacobolus 06:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Color specifications
I've altered the colors to meet US government specifications. The US flag is a great deal darker in color than people realize. Here it is Image:Us flag large colorspec.png, so you can take a look and see if you want to replace the very bright version on the wiki page with something closer to the proper colors Dogface
- I copied a larger version from the CIA world factbook. Press CTRL F5 on the page and tell me what you think of that one. --Jiang 22:34, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Color specifications 2
The following is quoted text:
The official regulation, which I just tracked down at the Defense Technology Information Center website http://www.dtic.mil is General Services Administration "Federal Specification, Flag, National, United States of America and Flag, Union Jack," DDD-F-416E, dated November 27, 1981. It specifies the colors by reference to "Standard Color Cards of America" maintained by the Color Association of the United States, Inc. These are:
- Cable No. 70180 Old Glory Red
- Cable No. 70001 White
- Cable No. 70075 Old Glory Blue
Joe McMillan, 25 January 2000
Old Glory Red (PMS 193C), White, and Old Glory Blue (PMS 281C)
(From: http://www.fotw.us/flags/us.html)
According to this site [2] these colors in RGB are:
- Old Glory Red: BF0A30
- Old Glory Blue: 002868
—Cantus…☎ 09:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The official colors given by the US Embassy in London [3]:
- Old Glory Red: PMS 193C (Solid Color, Coated), is approximately RGB 191, 10, 48 = BF0A30
- Old Glory Blue: PMS 281C is approximately RGB 0, 40, 104 = 002868
- White = RGB 255, 255, 255 is approximately FFFFFF
|
#BF0A30 |
#002868 |
white |
--Jacobolus 23:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SVG version discussions
I am going to start using the "clone" function, based on what was I was told, and see if we could knock the image size down a few notches. Zscout370 (sound off) 06:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds fine. Note that the SVG file size has no effect on the generated PNG file size. Also, the original flag's height was divisible by 13, which is sort of nice; your new version has height 300, so each of the 13 stripes is 23.07 pixels high. 741x390 would be slightly nicer. dbenbenn | talk 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I put it back into the original size (130 hoist), and the cloning is done. Zscout370 (sound off) 19:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I like your idea about using the <use> tag. I never knew about that tag, and it simplifies things a lot. I've uploaded a new version, completely rewritten to use that tag. I increased the hoist by a lot. It's important for the height to be divisible by 39, so that the star positions can be specified exactly. Also, it's nice to have the flag be at least 1280px wide, so it displays at full size on the description page. dbenbenn | talk 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I put it back into the original size (130 hoist), and the cloning is done. Zscout370 (sound off) 19:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
More about the colors: Flags of the World quotes the Texas Government Code, which apparently states
- (b) The red and blue of the state flag are:
- (1) the same colors used in the United States flag; and
- (2) defined as numbers 193 (red) and 281 (dark blue) of the Pantone Matching System.
User:dbenbenn 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
From the article:
- 1/130=0.05384615...
1/130 was 0.00769230 last time I checked. --67.172.99.160 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- -You're right, 1/130 isn't 0.053..., but 7/130 is. I've changed it in the article so that it's correct now. --Tobias Schmidbauer 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to save-then-upload the image over to the OLPC wiki at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg. I'm getting an error "Error creating thumbnail: convert: Non-conforming drawing primitive definition `polygon'." Any ideas? Charles Merriam 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, this appears to be related to https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-154, specifically that ImageMagick's built in SVG handling cannot deal with this code, and, for the OLPC wiki, ImageMagick will need to be recompiled with RSVG libraries. Charles Merriam 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it doesn't like "polygon" it's fairly easy to convert a polygopn path to an orinary path... AnonMoos 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is still some room for improvements.
Each little star currently consists of 5 triangles, but a pentagram only needs 3 triangles.
Example:
5gon star radius = 1; -> triangle hypotehnuse ~= 0,955;
<polygon id="pt" points="-0.4775 -0.1545, 0 0.191, 0.4775 -0.1545" fill="#fff"/> <g id="star"> <use xlink:href="#pt"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/> </g>
Only 3 triangles are needed, no additional scale factor.
Here an final implementation:
File:Flag_of_America_19_10.svg
djmj 1:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New flag.. (could use help on filesize)
I noticed that the old svg flag had colors which don't quite match up with the correct Pantone swatches in Illustrator. This version should be accurate. If someone can figure out how to apply the exact colors from this version to the last version, keeping the much smaller filesize, that would be great. --Jacobolus 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm confused. The two svg files preview with slightly different colors, but looking at the source, they use the same color values. Maybe there's some sort of ICC profile mismatch? Dunno, I'm stumped. I've reverted to the old flag. --Jacobolus 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some edits (also mostly ignore previous header)
Alright, I've done a bit of editing of the file, adding some metadata, including a link back to this page, and making the file fit in an 80 column width. It increases the file size a bit, but it's still < 4k, and metadata is always good. :) --Jacobolus 08:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, metadata is a good thing! I'm no expert, but I think the current version isn't valid SVG code. In the <svg> tag on line 3 is a definition for the xmlns:xlink namespace, but there's no definition anywhere for xmlns:rdf, xmlns:rdfs, xmlns:dc. I think I've seen SVG files that had additional URLs for defining those metadata tags. Do you know anything about that? User:dbenbenn 17:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Isn't there a validator somewhere? W3C says their HTML validator can handle SVG: "It also supports XHTML Family document types such as XHTML+MathML and XHTML+MathML+SVG, and also other markup vocabularies such as SVG." I can't seem to find it though. Also, I'm most delighted to see in what detail you people examine this file, striving for everything to be perfect. Such correctness is something I really love about Wikipedia! —Bromskloss 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License
Surely {{PD-OpenClipart}} is no longer relevant considering how the flag (and it's code) look now. /Lokal_Profil 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name of this Image
I consider the name of this flag image wrong. The name of the state in question is United States or USA not the United States (even if a wrong spelling redirect exists). Similary ill-named include Image:Flag of the People's Republic of China2.svg. We don't have a Image:Flag of the Iraq or Image:Flag of the Belgium or any other Flag of the <Whatsoever state. So the name of this image should be changed immidiately, even if its used on 200.000+ pages -- maybe because of that, because we tell the people something incorrect. --Matthiasb 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The name of the image is the same as the English wikipedia article en:Flag of the United States... AnonMoos 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More image notes (version of 00:43, 14 May 2008)
For the current version of the image (version of 00:43, 14 May 2008), an effort was made to simplify the SVG file and tighten the file size. This happens to result in a reduced file size of 1776 characters (recalling the Declaration of Independence) on 50 lines (evoking the States of the Union). Coincidentally, the longest line in the file turns out to be line no. 7, checking in at 77 columns. This also happens to recall the year the original 13-star Old Glory was adopted (1777). Plus, three sevens are supposed to be lucky. Or maybe I’m just superstitious having grown up in the South. —Technion 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Czech description
{{Editprotected}}
Please add to description
{{cs|[[Flag|Vlajka]] [[United States|Spojených Států]]}}
--sevela.p (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Albanian description
{{Editprotected}}
You may also add the albanian description
{{sq|[[Flag|Flamuri]] i [[United States|Shteteve të Bashkuara]]}}
--Cradel (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Russian description
{{Editprotected}}
Please add Russian description:
{{ru|[[:ru:Флаг|Флаг]] [[United States|Соединённых Штатов Америки]].}}
SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Albedo
hey this image is way to bright i see the flag everyday and i would apprecaite if you would please make it darker thank you -- 18:22, 4 December 2008 64.160.203.139
- Actually, using "#002868" for blue and "#bf0a30" is plenty dark already, and certainly a long way from the cartoony versions of these colors ("#0000ff" and "#ff0000"). Anyway, the RGB color-system is inherently device-dependent (not to mention lighting-dependent)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "pop-up" description
I would like all flags to have "some" text when people "mouse-over" the image... Or even have a link to the country article. Anyone know "what" text gets brought up upon "mouse-over". -- Mjquin id (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you use the "thumb" parameter on a Wikipedia article etc., that used to happen automatically (but apparently not anymore)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish description
{{Editprotected}}
Mind adding the Spanish description?
{{es|La [[:es:bandera|bandera]] de los [[:es:Estados Unidos|Estados Unidos]]}}
Thanks ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Done (And if you want to request an edit to a protected page, use {{editprotected}} normally, do not wrap it in {{tlx}}!) --Mormegil (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Add categorization
{{editprotected}} There's a nice categorization of flags going on, with subcategories for each country. However this image is not in it.
Please add this to category ( Category:SVG_flags_-_United_States_of_America ). The parent category is ( Category:SVG_flags ). Quite useful for easily browsing & finding.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickv (talk • contribs) 09:54, April 9, 2009 (UTC)
- Added {{editprotected}} --Yarnalgo (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Things to add
This file should be added to these categories:
- Category:Blue, red, white flags
- Category:SVG sovereign state flags
I would also like to see these added to the description:
Homo lupus (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. For the next time: When requesting an edit to a protected page, add {{editprotected}}, some admin would notice sooner. --Mormegil (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. Homo lupus (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Adding
Hi! Please add this to the description: Svenska:Förenta staternas flagga
Thanks,Kstaden (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Irish Description
Please add to description
{{ga|[[Flag|Bratach]] na [[:ga:Stáit Aontaithe|Stát Aontaithe]]}}
86.41.133.15 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Revert to last version
{{editprotected}} The current version is incorrect. It should be reverted to the version dated 14 May 2008. The blue is BB133E, while it should be BF0A30, and the red is 002664, even though it should be 002868. See en:Flag of the United States#Colors. Guy0307 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct colors
|
#BF0A30 |
#002868 |
white |
Current (and correct) colors
|
#BB133E |
#002664 |
#fffff |
While it does actually pain me slightly to align myself with Zscout370, I have to say this revert is baseless. The hex codes Guy0307 refers to are not referenced... or rather they are (sort of), but if you actually input the PMS colors into Pantone's converter web app, you will in fact get Zscout370's colors, not Guy0307's. Apparently one w:User:OCNative opted to change the hex colors over two years ago without providing a ref, and no one has bothered to question them until now. An admin should do more than take text at face value, he should verify the references. This reversion should be reverted, and while you're at it why don't you guys unprotect the file so this is an actual wiki again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- w:Flag of the United States color codes fixed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted it back to the referenced information. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Turned out the old colors are correct. I was just looking at the article, and I saw the color in the article and in the SVG don't match up, and since the colors in the article were referenced, I assumed they are correct. It's good the article is correct now.. Guy0307 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- At the time when we were figuring out colors, the Pantone site was not up. Now that it is, a lot of the images were switched to the Pantone site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It was up, someone just switched them and nobody caught it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] restoration of newlines
{{editprotected}} SVG loses much of its usefulness if it's unreadable, and removing newlines makes it so — please restore them, it's not worth it for 329 bytes.
While you're at it why don't you guys unprotect the file so this is an actual wiki again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is in the image source, so you can just copy that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, until one of you 'tards delete all of those. After all, what is the point of saving a whopping 329 bytes if we're still hosting another 206 kilobytes? (or: what [further] is the point of shaving off another 329 bytes if we're still hosting another 206 kilobytes) ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, I've lowered the page's protection level. Do whatever needs to be done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It's still protected. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC) handled per email Huib talk 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested Code
I see what you mean about the newlines, but really, each line should not take up four lines of code. I will paste the code I think would be best:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650"> <defs><polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/> <g id="star"><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/><use xlink:href="#pt"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/></g> <g id="s5"><use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/><use xlink:href="#star"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/></g> <g id="s6"><use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/></g> <g id="x4"><use xlink:href="#s6"/><use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/><use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/><use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/></g> <g id="u"><use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/><use xlink:href="#x4"/><use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/></g> <rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/></defs> <rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/> <rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/> <use xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/></svg>
The leading space is for display purposes and will not be in the actual SVG code. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's still pretty unreadable. It's a plain text format, and should be readable, especially given how much actual hand coding has gone into this and other images. Otherwise we may as well have been using some ultra-compressed binary format. Server load concerns are a problem for rsvg and whatever else is used for image caching, not the source code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- If I was trying to make it user-editable, I would probably go for something more like the following:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650"> <defs> <polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/> <g id="star"> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/> </g> <g id="s5"> <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/> <use xlink:href="#star"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/> </g> <g id="s6"> <use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/> </g> <g id="x4"> <use xlink:href="#s6"/> <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/> <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/> <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/> </g> <g id="u"> <use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/> <use xlink:href="#x4"/> <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/> </g> <rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/> </defs> <rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/> <rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/> <use xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/> </svg>
Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is readable, and conservative. I would support this version. –blurpeace (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's a strange suggestion. Zscout obviously won't care for it because it's virtually identical to the version he replaced. By the same token we could just revert to that version that he replaced. We don't need a compromise to satisfy just Zscout. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Things aren't as obvious as you see them. Zscout seemingly supports the proposed revision by Carl Lindberg. –blurpeace (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is worse than obvious, it's exactly what I have come to expect from Zscout. He makes radical decisions that he doesn't actually care about, leaving others to deal with the mess when he abruptly and inevitably loses interest. Nearly two weeks and this is what we've managed to do:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"version="1.1"xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650"> <defs> <polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/><g id="star"> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/> <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/> </g> <g id="s5"> <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/> <use xlink:href="#star"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/> </g> <g id="s6"> <use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/> <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/> </g> <g id="x4"> <use xlink:href="#s6"/> <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/> <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/> <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/> </g> <gid="union">id="u"> <use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/> <use xlink:href="#x4"/> <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/> </g> <rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/> </defs> <rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/> <use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/> <rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/> <usexlink:href="#union"xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/> </svg>
- If Zscout really cared about removing newlines, why did we just spend nearly two weeks to end up with him switching to a version nearly identical to the one he replaced. If you guys opposed removing all newlines, you should've just left the reversion, instead you're enabling this tedious behavior. This is bureaucratic nonsense — the entire ordeal was for nothing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
