Talk:Flag of Belarus

message: Why can't I see the thumbnail on the main page? I have to click on the image link to see the flag, and then only full-size. Also, several other flag images are blank.Yahnatan 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some problems in the past trying to load images, mainly due to server issues. Also, depending on what browser you use, the SVG images might not work. Zach (Sound Off) 00:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the point of using SVG images in this article, especially for the first image. It doesn't load in IE, and most people visit Wikipedia with Internet Explorer. Why do we need SVG so badly as to alienate those users and prevent them from seeing the flag on one of our featured articles? Ronline 03:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bitched at to do SVG images, mainly flag images. Zach (Sound Off) 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: I removed the sentence "Independent observers have said that the referendum that selected the current flag did not meet democratic standards." for the following reasons:
#no reference/source given, which is not good, considering article's features status. Who reported this? When? Is that a consensus view?
#vague
##who were the observers? How many were they, what exactly have they found?
##they are independent from whom? Were they financed by Western political groups? By Western governments? By international and supranational organisations? Or are they not "independent", but rather "opposed to existing government"?
##what exactly standards were not met? Were there violations at polling stations? Were some groups limited from participating? Was government trying to force people to vote in one or another way?
#misleading. It uses a loaded and poorly defined term "democratic". Saying that a referendum didn't met a democratic standard is extremely disengenious and misleading. A referendum is the epitome of democracy, itis democratic almost by its very definition.
##biased. Clearly the line was inserted as a potshot at the current administration of Belarus by one of its opponents.
Paranoid 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main source was from http://www.fotw.net/flags/by_law.html#ref, but the main website presenting this information are kaput. The information in the lead is fine now, I am not going to turn this into an edit war. Zach (Sound Off) 06:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, I personally thank you Paranoid for coming by and checking my work. While I try to maintain NPOV as much as possible, I do admit that I have a slight bias that might be towards Luka. Most of the sources I have are government information, and Belarusian websites about the flag are few and far between. Zach (Sound Off) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence about "independent observers" 

message: The 'White Rus' link is broken. Should it point to "White_Ruthenia"?
:Yeah, lets try that. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: The construction sheet shows the proportions of the flag incorrectly: the decorative pattern is given here as occupying one tenth of the flag's width, not the stated one ninth. Correct proportions are (reduced to the lowest integer factors): across, 2 and 16; down, 6 and 3. Vilcxjo 16:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Belarusian Presidency website, http://president.gov.by/eng/simbol/90d2c3741d228.html, said that the length of the ornament/decorative pattern is 1/9 of the flag's width. Zach (Sound Off) 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you are getting at. I'll fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag's proportions 

message: I know little of Belarus, though more than before after reading the article.  But there may be a typo in the sentence "An example of their use would be a host offering his guests rye, bread, and salt, which would then be served on a rushnik."  Shouldn't it read "rye bread and salt"? Peter 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 00:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo?  "rye, bread, and salt" 

message: According to the flag protocol ("By law, the Belarusian flag is supposed to be flown daily, weather permitting, from the following locations: (...) Military bases or military ships owned by the government"), the flag could be used as an ensign (governmental and naval), so I guess the right vexillological symbol is  or  or even . Am I right? NL-Ninane 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no official navy of Belarus, but the border guards have their own ensigns. Ill take a look at it when I get home, but yes, the FIAV symbol might change on here (I will probably have to change it on FOTW too). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ensign?

message: The text says the following:
:The referendum that was held to adopt the state symbols took place on May 14, 1995. With a voter turnout of 64.7%, the new flag was approved by a ratio of three to one (75.1% to 24.9%). The other three questions were also passed by the voters. The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition. Also, actually only 48.6% of the total electorate approved of the new emblem, since over a third of the eligible voters did not express an opinion. Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue.
This is not because of the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian law but this is the way how democracy works. Meursault2004 12:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Does democreacy work overriding constitution where it is writtent that "referendum has no law power" and only "advisory"? It happend only in Belarus (breaking constitution). Any other country with such "democracy"? Lisouczyk1 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The first sentence you highlighted, there are statements that they deem this election flawd due to the low vote count that was used to adopt not just the flag, but the state emblem. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issue

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: I feel the sentence should be added: The current ornamental pattern lacks, among other things, crosses easily visible even on the flag used in Soviet Union. This seems important to me as those differences are easily seen while comparing flags (the Soviet design, 1995-2012 design, current design) seen in the current article. Simply speaking, the current ornament pattern is greatly different from 1995-2012 pattern. 
 
It would be nice to have any clear-cut explanation of this perplexing and intriguing issue. I simply do not understand why my editing regarding this is repetitively removed from both pl.wiki and en.wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.177.39 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ornament pattern from the current Belorussian flag is actually just a stretched-out version of that from the 1995 design. The pattern from the flag of the Byelorussian SSR has its colors switched and has two red stripes added on either side of the ornament, compared to the 1995 flag. I'm not sure which "easily visible crosses" you say are missing from the current design; other than the omission of two small rectangles near the center of the current flag, I don't see any difference in the actual design of the ornaments. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

text: These crosses are probably just a result of the "pixelated" design of the ornament. Presumably, in the two earlier designs, they chose for "+" shapes to represent small rhombuses within each rhombus (giving each a "◇" shape). In 2012, they reduced the total number of "pixels" in the ornament, replacing the "+"es with small 1x1 rectangles. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

text: As I said, these crosses were probably not meant as crosses in the first place, just as "holes" within each rhombus. The size of each rhombus was reduced from 7×16 to 5×5 "pixels" in 2012, so the "holes" had to be represented by 1×1 rectangles, whereas the pre-2012 designs allowed enough detail for these "+" shapes 3×6 rectangles in size. The actual design didn't change; the way it is displayed did. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm just guessing as well, actually, though it seems that these "+"es don't have any "spiritual" meaning as crosses (if they had, I wouldn't know why they were replaced by rectangles). The "+"es would probably just be rhombuses if the design allowed for diagonal lines, though, again, I am not sure of anything. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  differences of the ornament pattern 

message: According to One Europe - 100 Nations by Roy N. Pedersen (1992, Channel View Books, ):
"On achieving independence, Belorussia briefly had a plain white flag, replaced in 1917 by the white-red-white flag ...".
Domhnallbeag (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-white flag 

message: in section Similar flags  the Flag of Arauca is different than the flag Arauca page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.18.118 (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , see Special:Diff/759988590. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Arauca 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flag of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226180506/http://www.nn.by/1998/06/14.htm to http://www.nn.by/1998/06/14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Flag of Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222112910/http://president.gov.by/en/press88691.html to http://president.gov.by/en/press88691.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011225918/http://www.belta.by/ru/info?id=93057 to http://www.belta.by/ru/info?id=93057
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121129015335/http://korea.mfa.gov.by/eng/rb/national_symbols/ to http://korea.mfa.gov.by/eng/rb/national_symbols/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927164427/http://pravo.by/lawhistory/konst.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129020006/http://pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1927.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1927.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929141907/http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1937.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1937.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121132541/http://arche.bymedia.net/2007-04/vaskievic704.htm to http://arche.bymedia.net/2007-04/vaskievic704.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122161921/http://fotw.net/flags/by%5E.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/by%5E.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has been chunked up with images causing MOS:SANDWICH; in a Featured article, this should be addressed to retain status.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: see the error cats at the bottom of this page ... vital articles is now all red. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  before the flag was listed in an "unknown topic" – I checked other flag articles and they were all the same, I suspect that the categories don't exist yet because all of the flag articles have incorrect categorization (if you see what I mean?). This is probably all due to the fact the Vital 5 list is rather undeveloped afaik. Btw, am working on this article and will ping you once I tidy up the images, refs and prose. Aza24 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  I've now formatted, archived and added refs, which I believe was the most outstanding issue. The images should also be good now. The prose could use some tweaking but it's nothing to FAR about – I'm of the opinion that this is "satisfactory" now, but let me know what you think. Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding it to my list (ping me if I forget :)  Thanks!  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  20:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

text: thanks (as always) for the work ... I am marking it Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last paragraph of white-red-white flag section needs a citation, but other than that this seems to be okay, and FAR would not be a helpful process here, so I'm marking it as satisfactory, as well. Hog Farm  Bacon 03:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issues 

message: The photo in the infobox, should be changed from Flag_of_Belarus_(1918,_1991–1995).svg to Flag_of_Belarus.svg. The white-red-white flag is not the current national flag, and this can cause confusion.(talk) 23:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bsoyka (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: This article is listed as Featured, but it does not meet the WP:FARC. This article is not in good enough shape, as after comparison, it definitely does not match the level of other FA-class flag articles like Flag of Canada, Flag of India, Flag of Japan, Flag of Singapore. There needs to be improvement/expansion/creation of protocol, related flags and symbolism sections in the article Flag of Belarus. Compared to the other FA-class articles on national flags, this article also lacks a construction sheet, which is rather important. (posted this here at the suggestion of Z1720 at WT:URFA/2020 on 11 April 2022).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article concerns 

message: Hi, @Matthiaspaul. I noticed that you added "The white-red-white flag also gave inspiration to the white-blue-white flag used in the 2022 anti-war protests in Russia" to this article, but didn't provide a source. Could you please give your source for this statement? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another editor removed the references although they supported the statement. I have reworded the statement to be even more in line with the references and readded the sources, now also giving quotes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[White-blue-white flag]]