Talk:Flag of Germany

message: According to Gordon A. Craig's Germany 1866-1945, page 58, "Germany had no national flag until 1892."  Should not, therefore the caption for the German Empire flag read 1892-1918, rather than 1871-1918. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.231.72.246 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Empire flag 

message: This article needs to be edited to change the layout.  The first paragraph is very hard to read; it is too compressed.  Perhaps, putting the text below the image would solve this problem.
* I believe this is a reference to text being squeezed between images on both sides.  Probably due to an editor using a wide screen and not realizing what happens on common smaller screens.  I shuffled the images.  (SEWilco 03:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout suggestion 

message: I added some additional details to this article, as well as some of the corrections I felt were necessary. One or two changes are fairly noticeable, so I think I should explain:
 
1) a diplomatic envoy flag is not an official national flag; the black-white-red was abolished during the weimar republic as far as I know. I am not certain why international representatives would don a flag that is discontinued, but I have heard that statistic before. Anyway, I removed the less-than official flag.
2) the german confederation, while in operation well into the 1860's, did not carry the black-red-gold flag so closely associated with the 1848 experiment. Its adaptation as such was only temporary. The monarchies wouldn't want to touch that thing with a ten-foot poll because it reeked of radicalism and has always referenced something disfavorable to the royalist cause.
3) the "red of the bird's tongue" theory behind the black-red-gold color scheme is absurd. I am certain it is a reference to the black and gold monarchy, with the red obviously representing the Hanseatic trading league of the past, so closely associated with the growth of Germany.--68.81.242.37 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections, more detail

message: Haven't got the faintest idea how it works.
Thats what is needed: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:FlaggeHRRHochmittelalter_upload.JPG
(It's the mediaveal Flag of the Holy Roman Empire which was not associated with the Kaiser (Imperator) but with the Nation; flag was in use aproximately from 1200 up to 1350, a good source to proof its correct would be: http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/fdtlhi1r.htm )
Thank you in advance. Foreigner 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. // Well, it's a rather difficult question to what extent it was adapted. There's detailed work to bee done by the historians. Foreigner 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: second addendom: It seems that the Swiss captured "the" flag from the Duke of Burgund (House of Savoy) who used/misused "the" flag. Later both, the Swiss and the House of Savoy used "the" flag. In the picture the Swiss infantry is on the right side of the picture. Please compare and veryfy reading the lemma Battle of Laupen. Foreigner 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems clear that a cross was somewhat universally adapted by German ancients, to nobody's surprise. However, I'm not completely sold on the Swiss/Burgundy/Frank combination being a nationlike expression of German-ness..."Flag of Regional Medieval Germans" or "Flag of Regional Frankish and Swiss Germans" might work. It would be nice if you could find a second source to back up the claims found on lexicon and provide a second opinion on how it should be titled. --Hohns3 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could somebody upload that to commons?

message: It's documented that a German wikipedian created the flag. Please read the discussion of the picture. 217.64.171.188 07:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree with removement of the flag

message: This sentence is a bit strange. First of all its not called a hate crime (or Hassverbrechen) in Germany but rather "symbol against the constitution" (verfassungsfeindliches Symbol). The second thing is: Who are "the democrats"? The flag was forbidden first by the occupying powers (Britain, USA, etc.) and later by the German government.217.85.110.56 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant to be similar to the caption of the Third Reich flag (tit-for-tat). ( 'Then'→'Now' etc.) I admit that "hate crime" was only a descriptive term; The point was that it is illegal for its 'hateful' connotations. I'll change that. How about "Currently illegal in Germany"?. By the way, is it mere possession, purchase or public display that is illegal? Hm. Anyway, thanks for telling! --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you want to know: Technically, there is no such thing as a "hate crime" in Germany, in terms of legislation, at least not with the connotations the term has in the USA. — Mütze 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Purchase and public display are illegal in Germany. But there are exceptions: If you add a (critical) comment (e.g. in school books) public display is allowed.— Hossi 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  swastika flag 'Now forbidden by the democrats as "hate crime" ' 

message: What is the proper way o dispose of the german flag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuhl33 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposing of german flag 

message: I've noticed that the shade of red for the German imperial flag and weimar/present flag is darker than the red commonly used for the Nazi flag. Considering that the Nazis used the German Imperial flag for a few years, would their red naturally correspond with the German imperial flag, or was the Nazi flag officially a bright red along with a bright-red version of the imperial tricolour?--R-41 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shade of red for Third Reich flag 

message: Recently, another merge request was placed on the page, suggesting that National colours of Germany be merged with the History section. Since the proposer didn't mention it here on the talk page, I thought I would. The national colours article contains a lot of information already on this page, and is very small when compared with the corresponding de-wiki articles (:de:Schwarz-Rot-Gold and  :de:Schwarz-Weiß-Rot). As part of my current work on this article, I've already been using content from these articles for ideas, so I have no problem with the merge. Not many countries have a national colours article anyway. - 52 Pickup 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd merge proposal

message: The flag of Waldeck_(state) looks the same -- any connection? 129.31.71.161 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tough one, I'm finding contradictory explanations. The de-wiki claims that the colours were used by Waldeck from at least 1815, citing Waldeck's anthem (5th verse) - but the text given is from 1890 and only the melody is from 1815, and from what I've seen so far, the previous text makes no mention of the colours (although I might not have found the full text yet). Meanwhile FOTW says that black-red-yellow was used  by Waldeck's militia as of 1814. FOTW also says that yellow on black were Waldeck's colours in 1692 and suggests that black-red-yellow was used from even as far back as 1775.  The black-red-gold flag was definitely in use after 1848, apparently because Waldeck was one of the states that signed onto the failed 1848 constitution, which gave the tricolour as its national colours (this still needs verification). So the colours pre-1848 are still a bit unclear. - 52 Pickup 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waldeck

message: The article insinuates that the current flag is the same as the flag of the Weimar republic, having simply been re-adopted after it had temporarily been retired by the Nazis. E.g.:
:The current flag, first used in the 1848 revolution, was adopted in its present form on 11 August 1919 in the constitution of the Weimar Republic.
Or:
:11 August 1919 (2:3) Re-adopted 23 May 1949
Is that really correct? The 1848 flag seems to be identical to the 1919 flag, so what about "its present form"? Even worse, the Weimar flag actually does not represent the present form, because it has a different aspect ratio. I think the sentence is misleading – the current form was adopted on 23 May 1949. --SKopp 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "its present form", this refers just to the black-red-gold tricolour and not the aspect ratio. Perhaps this should be reworded to reflect this. More about the aspect ratio: the 19th-century flag had no defined aspect ratio, while the ratio for the modern flag was set on 7 July 1950, just over a year after the flag was (re)introduced. - 52 Pickup 18:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I changed the article to clarify that 1919 wasn't the first use of the current flag, in the sense that if you speak loosely (and ignore the aspect ratio) it was used much earlier, but not by the nation-state that was founded in 1871; whereas if you speak strictly, the 1919 flag was simply not the same as the 1949 one. --SKopp 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weimar flag 

message: Per the quick-fail criteria, any article that contains cleanup or expansion banners (such as the multiple merge banners now present) must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please resolve any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. If you feel this review was in error, you may request a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge issues now resolved - 2 merged (Flag of Nazi Germany, Flag of the GDR), 1 not merged (National colours of Germany) - so now renominating. - 52 Pickup (deal) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick-failed GA nomination

message: Following the recent successful promotion of this article to FA, here is a summary of some of the points for consideration for further work:
*A new section on the various symbols used on the flag through history: must be careful not to simply incorporate Coat of arms of Germany, which should remain a separate article.
*Separate section of flag protocol: while some relevant information is already present in various sections, other flag FAs have such a section. While there is no standard format for flag articles, it's worth keeping in mind.
*Manufacturing: is there any specific information here? I couldn't find any so far.
*Copy-editing: although the article has passed FAC, a final polish by someone else would be nice. 
*Splitting the article? Opinion was divided on whether or not the History section should be in its own article. Personally, I'd prefer to have everything together.
There are a few other points that were raised by the nomination. See FAC (note that the nomination was restarted) for more information. - 52 Pickup (deal) 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC notes 

message: In the Flag Days Box, the "n/a" against June 17th should be replaced with "former Day of German Unity 1953-1990". I left Germany for good in 1975, and 33 years later I still feel strongly that the Day of German Unity should not have been moved to October. The 17th of June was East Germany's Tiananmen Square and should not be forgotten or sidelined. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag days:  former Day of German Unity 17th June 

message: When I look at the article, at the end of the lead section I see the following text:
FAGGGGOOOOOOTTT NAZIIIIII NAZIIII
But when I went to edit it I couldn't see it anymore. I checked again and saw it again. Then I looked at the history and saw that this line had been removed from some vandalism earlier. How come I can still see it, after the vandalism was reverted? Jake the Editor Man  (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Nazi profanity 

message: In the section "Prussian-dominated Germany" it states that "King Frederick William IV of Prussia was satisfied with the colour choice" of the North German Cofederation flag, but Frederick William had died in 1861, 5 years before the Confederation was founded and acquired a flag. I assume that William I of Prussia is actually meant here. Cplakidas (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong King 

message: The MoS for images suggests that images be placed both right and left in more or less alternating order (but avoid sandwiching). Most of the images in this article at on the right hand side, so it might be worthwhile to change the layout of some images Jasy jatere (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the article could certainly stand to have some of the images shifted to the left, particularly in the portion about half way down where there are a large number of right-aligned images. It would have to be tested to see if it looks ok, of course, and since I'm useless with images I'll leave it to someone else Adacore (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to have all flags on the right side, while other images may also be on the left. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  placement of imgs 

message: The name of the the German flag is "Bundesflagge", not "Schwarz-Rot-Gold". 84.62.125.217 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was just going to change that in the article. De728631 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Flag 

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) 11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: I wonder if the following sentence, however goodintentioned, should be edited?
"The utilisation of the old imperial tricolour by the far right and its attempts to associate the tricolour with its antidemocratic and xenophobic ideals are strongly objected to by modern German monarchists."
Xenophobia, according to it's wikipage, is: an intense dislike and/or fear of people from other countries. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear."
(I think the last dot could be edited on "fear." as well, but that's another story)
1. Xenophobia sounds more like a disorder, as in "arachnophobia" or "social phobia". As such I think the proper terminology, RACIST is more apropriate.
2. This sounds like they hate ANY foreigner, including their european neighbours. However, they do have mass-meetings with russians, norwegians and swedes present. So xenophobic can not be the proper word to use here.
3. How can a group have a phobic ideal? Sort of "you know, that group with their arachnophobic ideals?". A phobia is a disorder, it is not an ideal you work towards ataining.
4. Why the fear of using the word "racists"? They are racists. And have racist ideals. End of story.
:"Xenophobic ideal" = protectionism; it means mistrust of non-Germans.  While modern Germany does indeed reach out to its neighbours, the sentence above does not say "the utilisation... by Germany...," it says "the utilisation... by the far right..."  The far right was indeed xenophobic and did have protectionist ideals.  Alles klar? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sentence suffered from a German to English translation. In Germany the term "racist" is not commonly used because it promotes the idea of human races---something the Nazis were very fond of... 85.216.116.200 (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenophobia? 

message: There has never been such a flag proposal in 1919. The proposal could have taken place in 1926. But never officially discussed in the german parliament anyway.--217.185.115.74 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged "Nordic Cross" flag of the Weimar Republic 

message: The Black-White-Red Tricolor was never banned as "reactionary". On the contrary. Officially the flag continued to be a flag "of honour" after 1935 ! Hermann Göring himself proclaimed in a speech in the German Reichstag on 17. September 1935:
Die alte Flagge, sie ist in Ehren eingerollt worden. Sie gehört einem vergangenen Deutschland der Ehre an. (...) Die Achtung, die wir vor der alten Flagge schwarz-weiß-rot haben, zwingt uns zu verhindern und zu verhüten, dass diese Farben und diese Flagge herabgewürdigt werden zu einem Parteiwimpel, unter dem sich als Siegeszeichen die Reaktion verborgen hält.
That means that the Nazis tried to prevent the conservative "right" to use the Black-White-Red flag for their own purposes, but Black-White-Red was called "a flag of honour" !
--Gomeira (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, as they did with most "reactionary" stuff. However, the very speech of Göring you cite shows that they seem to have felt a need to replace it as a now-party-flag of Prussian reactionaries. They pretended (and, what is more difficult, perhaps felt) that they did this in honour of the flag, but still that's how it stands. --77.4.70.195 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black-White-Red Tricolor banned as "reactionary" by the Nazis ?? 

message: What does it make it a neo-Nazi march? I mean the protesters don't carry Nazi flags not have they any any visible Nazi signs. They are carrying an Imperial flag, which has nothing to do with the Nazi era. Norum (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neo-Nazi march in Munich" picture 

message: I have a old WWII German Battle Flage, I would like to find out where it's from and what it was use for. The flag is 51 inches long by 28 inches wide, red back ground white center circle with black. in the upper left corner a gray eagel, eagle is looking left and has the letters NSKK above it. would love to find out more about this flag.
any one can email me at johndyer_670@msn.com
:Look here: Flags of the NSKK--Gomeira (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Battle Flags 

message: Is it worth mentioning the "In the night, through the blood, to the light." theory of the meaning of the colors and their sequence? 72.160.140.111 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning? 

message: The mentioned discussion in FOTW is obsolete. There are recent publications (see source), which definitely prove that the only official German National flag after 1935 was the off-centered disk version. Flags with centered swastikas that were used after 1935 (and found in 1945 by the allies) all represented Party flags ! This led to some confusion after the war as to the correct position of the disk.
The somewhat complicated matter is (correctly) illustrated here (including the intricate question of the reverse sides of the flags):
Also the German Wikipedia delivers the facts correctly:
Source: Andreas Herzfeld: Einige unbekannte Flaggenänderungen 1933-1945 in: Der Flaggenkurier Nr. 13/2001, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Flaggenkunde, S. 17 ff.
--Gomeira (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have also updated List of German flags. Cheers, Pædia 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-Centred-disk Swastika flag 

message: I'm surprized that this Featured Article makes no mention of the Civil Ensign used by Weimar Germany - ). I'm not a flag expert, but would have thought it merited a mention. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Ensign of the Weimar Republic

message: This doesn't read idiomatically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.6.83 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Since they were from different parts of Germany and were all wearing different coloured clothes, the only possibility for them, in order to have a uniform appearance, was to colour their clothes black.

message: Under design the article list the current colors in use. What (specific) colors did the old flags have? How did the red change over the years?--78.48.41.250 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors used in historic flags? 

message: The similarity with the Flag of Belgium is not mentioned here, although the similarity is illustrated at that article. In fact, that article has an entire section on similar flags. Why is this not also the case here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Similar flag" sections like this tend to be out of scope, unreferenced and original research. I've removed the one that was (briefly) in this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flag of Belgium]] 

message: At psychometric tests, the German Flag is on the top of the list of the bellicose flags that do not depict animals or beasts.
Please include psychometric tests. The article is not full. I do not harass the German flag. Wikipedia in general fails to
include flag related psychometric results. The fact that data are not included doesn't mean that that there are no psychometric vexillological data  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.218.172 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellicose Flag Psychometry 

message: According to this source, it seems like black-white-red flag is legal in Germany.
[]
Kaettekita T. Lavhey (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Empire flag (1866-1918) is not banned in Germany! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Germany. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/parliament/function/legal/germanbasiclaw.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://styleguide.bundesregierung.de/index_de.html?Content=basiselemente%2Ffarben%2Fprimaerfarben_de.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Standardartikel/DE/Ministerium/Protokoll/beflaggungserlass.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227143044/http://www.stiftung-aufarbeitung.de/downloads/pdf/english.pdf to http://www.stiftung-aufarbeitung.de/downloads/pdf/english.pdf
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) 05:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Germany. 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/20080209123942/http://www.fotw.net/flags/de_hoist.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/de_hoist.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312195401/http://www.fotw.net/flags/de-wb947.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/de-wb947.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) 13:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flag of Germany. 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/20100629012856/http://www.everythingaboutgermany.com/Germany-Flag.html to http://www.everythingaboutgermany.com/Germany-Flag.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) 12:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It looks they have new flags with logo containing Bundesadler provided by Deutscher Fussbal-Bund Fan Club. See here. Gumruch (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This caught my eye as well, but it certainly seems trivial even in the scope of flag variants or 1989–present. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New flag for football fans? 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "these details are not sufficiently significant as to resort to Speer and Mein Kampf". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flag of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This 2008 promotion looks like it needs some work to get up to the modern FA standards.  There is a decent amount of uncited text sprinkled throughout the article, and a few of the web sources look weak - Flags of the World is dubious, and the Historical Flags of Our Ancestors source (aka loeser.us) doesn't look very reliable, either. This may need a featured article review. Hog Farm  Talk 07:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion