File talk:Gay Pride Flag.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from File talk:Gay flag.svg)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About choice of colors[edit]

This image is currently used on so many Wikipedia pages that an attempt has been made to make sure that the image accurately reflects actual rainbow pride flags commonly flown today, rather than what a particular editor personally believes the colors ought to be. In particular, the colors were adjusted to interpolate between those depicted in the following real pride flags, which were used as reference:

It should be noted that the original eight-striped pride flag dyed by Gilbert Baker likely used a hue of violet that tended chromatically toward lavender more than does the violet used in the current image (version as of 10:03, 3 April 2007).

Muhandis 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2018[edit]

Averaging between colors in photographs of street scenes is a downright awful way of doing this. So many variables such as thickness of the fabric, direction of the light, cloud coverage, humidity, ASA used, type of camera, etc. can affect the colors. Witness the photo at https://theredphoenixapl.org/2012/10/03/california-is-first-state-to-ban-gay-cure-for-minors/ which shows two presumably identical flags side-by-side which look significantly different. It is a sure thing that none of those photographs are even close to accurate representations of the flags that were photographed. Beyond that, the colors have varied greatly in flags that have been made. And if all that wasn't enough, doing these calculations is certainly original research.

I could not find any definitive source. I think the only color set that could be considered definitive would be for someone to go to measure the original flag (if it still exists) or perhaps the Gilbert Baker-approved flag at MoMA (which is not the original). I do not think that simply measuring an actual flag like the one at MoMA with a high-quality color meter would be considered original research. The source is MoMA. Or, someone could contact flag makers and find out what colors they're using (they're not published, as far as I know).

Here is a comparison of colors:

This image as of June 20, 2018
 E70000   FF8C00   FFEF00   00811F   0044FF   760089 

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/qq-rb.html ("most frequently used" colors), June 20, 2018
 DA201E   E69E24   FDFF2D   559B0E   2100FC   580097 

From Gilbert Baker's web site https://gilbertbaker.com/rainblow-flag-color-meanings/, June 24, 2018; note these colors do not match the colors in the flag photograph directly below.
 FB0016   F98100   FAEA00   129828   0D85BE   700084 

From the Gilbert font at https://www.typewithpride.com/ (non-muted), June 24, 2018
 FF402C   FF6B00   FEC82D   0DD078   00B2E5   DD2FB7 

From the Gilbert font at https://www.typewithpride.com/ (muted), June 24, 2018
 D36565   DC8641   EEC644   83CE84   88CCF3   B464B1 

https://www.schemecolor.com/lgbt-flag-colors.php (very close to this image), June 20, 2018
 E70000   FFBC00   FFEF00   00811F   0044FF   760089 

RoyLeban (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC), updated RoyLeban (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“#rrggbb” versus “#rgb” specification[edit]

The current image (version as of 10:03, 3 April 2007) expresses the RGB values in the 3×8-bit form “#rrggbb” rather than the 3×4-bit form “#rgb” because of occasional confusion regarding the relationship between the two. For example, people intending to write “#a000c0” may consider “#a0c” to be a “more efficient” representation, but the two are very different: in the former, “#a000c0” represents RGB intensities of <160/255, 0/255, 192/255>, which is close to what one may be intuitively thinking (<160/256, 0/256, 192/256>), whereas the latter is actually converted during rendering to “#aa00cc,” which corresponds to <170/255, 0/255, 204/255>, which is quite different. To avoid any potential confusion and surprises, the RGB color values have therefore been expressed in the full 24-bit form. — Muhandis 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the colors[edit]

Once I heard that the gay flag starts with the purple stripe, which would be a way to differ it from the flags of Peruan indigenous movements (like older versions of Banner of the Inca Empire.svg and Tawantin Suyu Wiphala.svg). Could someone confirm it? --Tonyjeff 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's on Wikipedia is LGBT symbols... AnonMoos 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the original 1978 version of the flag, the colors were pink, red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, cyan, and violet. Colors pink and turquoise were removed from the current LGBT flag because pink = sexuality and turquoise = magic/art, and these two issues are not necessarily the best subjects to bring up. Approximate CMYK values: Pink is 0-37-21-4, Red is 0-100-100-0, Orange is 0-50-100-0, Yellow is 0-0-100-0, Green is 100-0-100-0, Turquoise is 40-0-2-20, Cyan is 100-0-0-0 and Purple is 50-100-0-0. If anyone knows better the approximate CMYK values, please let me know. WikiPro1981X (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green[edit]

As of May 2011, the green stripe looks too dark. All the colors should be of equal brightness. Twinsday (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're viewing the image with a run-of-the-mill LCD monitor, all bets are off. Use a properly color-balanced and gamma-adjusted CRT monitor. Most CRT monitors with analog RGB inputs are capable of at least 16.7 million colors, while typical LCD monitors have a gamut of about 262,000 colors, i.e., 1.6% of what a CRT can do. —Quicksilver@ 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay1989 color divergencies[edit]

Due to the Fry1989 upload war we have now 46 versions of this file. Various files where Fry1989 changed colors contained then internally inconsistent color specifications like fill="#A000C0" style="fill:#750787". As a matter of fact, while librsvg shows A000C0, 750787 is shown instead by firefox offline in this case. That caused recently my error.

As often as AnonMoos tried to help Fry1989, every time he replaced correct coding ignorantly with his inconsistencies. Additionally they showed hairline cracks, even if Fry1989 refused to see them. In this way, he replaced valid SVG code by not only very complicated but also W3C-invalid code:

 
The source code of the previous SVG was invalid due to an error.

0 -- sarang사랑 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colors 2021[edit]

Per this site, published 2021 Jun 4, the colors are:

 E50000   FF8D00   FFEE00   028121   004CFF   770088 

Since that's more recent that the last discussion or edit, I'll make the change, but it's not much of a difference. Kwamikagami (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]