Category talk:Variations on flags by country
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Disagreeing the extension of the "variation" definition
[edit]Animation is not a flag variation. Variations on flags means to me graphic involvement in the content of the flag which turns it to a fictional flag. Like this. File:Animated-Flag-France.gif, or File:Animated-Flag-Israel.gif, however, are no fictional flags. These are actual, official flags, shown in a motion format. I was surprised to learn that “an animated variation of the normal flag image” makes it an abnormal one,, and I still see no reason to include legal and accurate designs of national banners in the “variations”-folder only because the file is animated. Orrlingtalk 02:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it depends on how you look at it. Taking Israel as an example, you can think of all versions of the national flag (including animated versions) being the original flag with fictional flags like
hybrid flags or 
rainbow flags as fictional variations on the national flag (like you do). You can also think of 
File:Flag of Israel.svg as the original flag, with other versions of the national flag (for example 
animated flags and 
Nuvola flags) as variations on that. SiBr4 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that different editors might have different views regarding "what is a variation". - However, a “variation” is also a word with a fairly established universal definition, and in my opinion when this comes to graphic diagrams or other visual symbols - such as flags or pieces of art - a “variation” must involve a modification of one or more of the features within the graphic composite of the official image - like this for example, ignoring observations of the file type or angle of viewing. in this light, an animated file which depicts a given flag with 100%-accurate perspective and colour composite simply don't merit being tagged as a variation as far as I believe. Orrlingtalk 03:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind if all animated flags/Nuvola flags are moved to the main "Flags of ..."/"SVG flags of ..." categories (if done consistently), though it's still debatable what qualifies as a variation. By your definition, files which represent the actual flags but don't use officially specified construction or colors (such as [[File:Flag of the United Kingdom (WFB 2004).gif|border|x15px]]
), and thus aren't "100% accurate", would be variations. Images incorporating the non-modified flags (e.g. 
) would, on the other hand, belong in the main categories, by that logic. SiBr4 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I think you know by yourself that the last part of that interpretation of my comment is not valid :), these three examples are of course variations, because they are featured with adaptations to their officially-designated outlines (that should be borderless rectangles of a definite proportionality) while Nuvola-type files preserve all aspect ratios and content notwithstanding they suggest that an official flag can...uhm... be waved! :) . To fully see what I'm saying please have a small experiment: see this file. Oh my God, it should be classified at "Category:Variations on flags of South Africa"! :-) according to the sense of dumping folded, waving or otherwise not flat-rendered official flags under "variations". Of course you know this is not the case, this is no variation – the very same way as this is not a variation. Orrlingtalk 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- So such files should only be in the "main" categories if the incorporated flags have rectangular shape? That's even more arbitrary :)
No, if there's a clear definition which puts animated and Nuvola flags in the "normal flags" category and everything else in the "variations" category, then I don't mind adhering to that. SiBr4 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Basically and simply, any file which depicts a graphic adaptation not officially-registered made to one or more of the following: 1. the proportions of a flag as registered by its authority and/or suggested in our plain-flag svg series formatted by the code File:Flag of (entity name).svg; 2. the composite of colour/figures/symbols/stripes and other components and their locations and sizes within the given area of a banner; 3. borders and outlines of a flag as designated by the official authority represented by the flag, should be classified at the Category:Variations on flags subtree. Other files should not. It's pointless to continue with more mini-minor examples of possible exceptions, which are naturally endless, just tell if you can agree with the basic principle observing that waving flags are not variations on flags and that a file format does not determine whether the file is a "variation", but solely its content. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never said waving flags should be in the "variations" categories just because they are waving, nor that photographs of waving flags should (we have "Photographs of flags of ..." categories for these). I'm arguing that by your definition of a variation, any image incorporating a flag without modifying it would belong in the main categories. File types do not determine a file's categorization in "variation" categories, but there's still a difference between (for example) File:Puerto Rican Flag.gif and File:Animated-Flag-Puerto Rico.gif. I can agree that animated flags may not be "variations" by your definition, but different definitions may classify them as such. SiBr4 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can you enlighten me with the differnce between File:Puerto Rican Flag.gif and File:Animated-Flag-Puerto Rico.gif? (other than the motion?) I strained my eyes and didn't find any. It feels to me the good solution for your basic kind of motivation is to categorize all the wave-anim flag files as Category:Waving flags, while freeing these files from the "variation" mistag. This is simply the way to end the story from my own point of view. Orrlingtalk 22:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I actually meant that File:Animated-Flag-Puerto Rico.gif is an animated, waving flag while File:Puerto Rican Flag.gif is a "normal" rectangular one. Whether or not these files are variations, they are different types of flag image even though they have the same file format.
- Looking at the non-photograph files that are currently in Category:Waving flags, it seems the Nuvola icons and animated flags may belong in that category, though I see you already moved them to its subcategories. SiBr4 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're saying that you are in agreement with de-catting the animated non-fictional flags from "variations"? Yes, I understand your meaning now about the Puerto Rican example, these two share the same file format and are also the same official flag with no variations at all, which means the animated one needs to be removed from "Variations on-" to "Animated flags of-" which in turn can go at "Waving flags". OK? Orrlingtalk 08:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though the animated flags of a country should (obviously) also be in (a subcategory of) the main "Flags of country" category which collects all flags of the country, not only in the "Animated flags" category which collects all animated flags.
- Agreed obviously. Orrlingtalk 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not all flags in Category:Animated flags are in fact waving flags. There are some animated files which switch between several rectangular flags, such as
. SiBr4 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. I've noticed these very well. Orrlingtalk 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though the animated flags of a country should (obviously) also be in (a subcategory of) the main "Flags of country" category which collects all flags of the country, not only in the "Animated flags" category which collects all animated flags.
- I'm not sure if you're saying that you are in agreement with de-catting the animated non-fictional flags from "variations"? Yes, I understand your meaning now about the Puerto Rican example, these two share the same file format and are also the same official flag with no variations at all, which means the animated one needs to be removed from "Variations on-" to "Animated flags of-" which in turn can go at "Waving flags". OK? Orrlingtalk 08:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can you enlighten me with the differnce between File:Puerto Rican Flag.gif and File:Animated-Flag-Puerto Rico.gif? (other than the motion?) I strained my eyes and didn't find any. It feels to me the good solution for your basic kind of motivation is to categorize all the wave-anim flag files as Category:Waving flags, while freeing these files from the "variation" mistag. This is simply the way to end the story from my own point of view. Orrlingtalk 22:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never said waving flags should be in the "variations" categories just because they are waving, nor that photographs of waving flags should (we have "Photographs of flags of ..." categories for these). I'm arguing that by your definition of a variation, any image incorporating a flag without modifying it would belong in the main categories. File types do not determine a file's categorization in "variation" categories, but there's still a difference between (for example) File:Puerto Rican Flag.gif and File:Animated-Flag-Puerto Rico.gif. I can agree that animated flags may not be "variations" by your definition, but different definitions may classify them as such. SiBr4 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Basically and simply, any file which depicts a graphic adaptation not officially-registered made to one or more of the following: 1. the proportions of a flag as registered by its authority and/or suggested in our plain-flag svg series formatted by the code File:Flag of (entity name).svg; 2. the composite of colour/figures/symbols/stripes and other components and their locations and sizes within the given area of a banner; 3. borders and outlines of a flag as designated by the official authority represented by the flag, should be classified at the Category:Variations on flags subtree. Other files should not. It's pointless to continue with more mini-minor examples of possible exceptions, which are naturally endless, just tell if you can agree with the basic principle observing that waving flags are not variations on flags and that a file format does not determine whether the file is a "variation", but solely its content. Thank you. Orrlingtalk 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- So such files should only be in the "main" categories if the incorporated flags have rectangular shape? That's even more arbitrary :)
- Well I think you know by yourself that the last part of that interpretation of my comment is not valid :), these three examples are of course variations, because they are featured with adaptations to their officially-designated outlines (that should be borderless rectangles of a definite proportionality) while Nuvola-type files preserve all aspect ratios and content notwithstanding they suggest that an official flag can...uhm... be waved! :) . To fully see what I'm saying please have a small experiment: see this file. Oh my God, it should be classified at "Category:Variations on flags of South Africa"! :-) according to the sense of dumping folded, waving or otherwise not flat-rendered official flags under "variations". Of course you know this is not the case, this is no variation – the very same way as this is not a variation. Orrlingtalk 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind if all animated flags/Nuvola flags are moved to the main "Flags of ..."/"SVG flags of ..." categories (if done consistently), though it's still debatable what qualifies as a variation. By your definition, files which represent the actual flags but don't use officially specified construction or colors (such as [[File:Flag of the United Kingdom (WFB 2004).gif|border|x15px]]
- I agree that different editors might have different views regarding "what is a variation". - However, a “variation” is also a word with a fairly established universal definition, and in my opinion when this comes to graphic diagrams or other visual symbols - such as flags or pieces of art - a “variation” must involve a modification of one or more of the features within the graphic composite of the official image - like this for example, ignoring observations of the file type or angle of viewing. in this light, an animated file which depicts a given flag with 100%-accurate perspective and colour composite simply don't merit being tagged as a variation as far as I believe. Orrlingtalk 03:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
