More importantly and amusingly the Vatican flag is square - [|] vs [ | ]. Your emoji viewer may render it wrong (check your flag section, iPhone gets it right) but don’t feel bad - most of the flags are incorrectly rectangle.
Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
101–110 of 159 posts
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect ;)
It used to have its own wiki article which was downgraded as the result of the lack of reputable newspapers making references to the Gell-Mann effect. Like if newspapers would ever push that concept in their columns...
[deleted]
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#103edit: For whatever reason, my computer is rendering the wrong shade of yellow. You can see the previous edit/revert war that was happening on the image itself here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Vatican_... Previous text: ->Unfortunately, the correction to the flag has been reverted, and the vatican flag on wikipedia is now incorrect. Again.<-
I see the correct one, and it hasn't changed since 1 January. Regardless, that edit history is interesting because it suggests that the mistake (if it is one) goes back way further than Wikipedia. The very first upload (24 Nov 2005) had the red tiara, and was added with this comment: > Flag of the Vatican City from the [ http://openclipart.org/ Open Clip Art] website. {{PD-OpenClipart}} Category:SVG flags
Turn out I am just blind and had the wrong hue of yellow in mind.
But yes, it's quite interesting to watch some of the flag pages. Vexillologists constantly fighting over the correct flag.
One of the recent ones fixed was the Imperial Japanese flag. Watching that flag flip flop between 4 or 5 different iterations was amusing, to say the least.
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#104On the one hand, yes, it's incorrect.
On the other, claiming malicious intent is pretending the little flood fill is FAR more important than it really is. It's not the era of the crusades anymore, and realistically if this bothers anyone, the easiest solution is to just remove that flood fill from the official flag because a speck of red makes zero difference in recognizing a flag. We're not carrying them into war, and the Vatican sure as hell isn't funding any expeditions by the Doge of Venice to reclaim Jerusalem any time soon.
It's like someone getting the font for "California Republic" on the California flag wrong: no one cares except the people who shouldn't.
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#105Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#106One of looking at this is that European banners, coats of arms, etc, are traditionally defined in writing (often using a domain-specific language called a blazon), and then compiled to a visual form by a banner maker. This compilation is intended to be reversible -- one goal is to be able to look up the written form in a book of heraldry based on the visual appearance -- but, just like compiling code, is not a one-to…
Additional: Blazons mostly concern themselves with the distinguishing element, the coat of arms on the escutcheon, with the external devices described mostly by reference – the papal tiara, an Earl’s coronet, a naval crown, etc. Mostly because in the heraldry of a European country these coronets were somewhat standardised – “everybody” knows that a duke’s coronet has acanthus/strawberry leaves – and for well-known cr…
Link [1] does not work for me but this does https://web.archive.org/web/20131217230421fw_/http://www.uni...
The illustration of the coat of arms is more helpful than it may appear, because it uses the heraldic conventions for indicating colours in engravings: the field (background) is gules (red), indicated by the vertical hatching; the keys are or (gold) and argent (silver) indicated by spotted hatching and plain white.
The diagram indicates the lining of the tiara is argent, unlike the depiction of the arms on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_arms_of_the_Holy_Se...
In real life the lining of the tiara of Benedict XVI is white https://orbiscatholicussecundus.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-pap...
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#107I’m not taking a side on any issue at all, and definitely not this one! Just a funny observation about how something could go undetected on a wiki. I’ll go as far as a joke postulate:
“For any given page on wikipedia, the people with the most personal experience (as distinct from ‘knowledge’) will be the least frequent visitors to that page.”
Or as it was later to be summed up, “so… you thought doctors were the ones searching for ‘doctor’ on the internet?”
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#108How is this Wikipedia's fault if the Vatican doesn't even make usable graphics of their own flag available? I suppose an ancient conservative institution like the Catholic Church failing to adapt to the internet isn't all that surprising, but you can hardly blame well-willing volunteers for the Vatican's lack of public information.
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#109Fun fact: This also happened with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy for some time, where the civil naval ensign was communicated as the flag, compare [0] and [1].
It can be still found on Amazon, etc, as "Austria-Hungary Flag".
[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flags_of_Austria-Hungary
Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere
#110It is amusing that an entity as obscenely rich as the Vatican isn’t providing official high quality images of their own flag. Maybe it isn’t as important in the grand scheme of things?