File talk:Flag of the United States.svg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussions from w:Image_talk:Us_flag_large.png (which no longer exists)

Proportions

• The executive order listing proportions can be found here [1]. Look to the far bottom of the page

--Jacobolus 06:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Color specifications

I've altered the colors to meet US government specifications. The US flag is a great deal darker in color than people realize. Here it is Image:Us flag large colorspec.png, so you can take a look and see if you want to replace the very bright version on the wiki page with something closer to the proper colors Dogface

I copied a larger version from the CIA world factbook. Press CTRL F5 on the page and tell me what you think of that one. --Jiang 22:34, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Color specifications 2

The following is quoted text:

The official regulation, which I just tracked down at the Defense Technology Information Center website http://www.dtic.mil is General Services Administration "Federal Specification, Flag, National, United States of America and Flag, Union Jack," DDD-F-416E, dated November 27, 1981. It specifies the colors by reference to "Standard Color Cards of America" maintained by the Color Association of the United States, Inc. These are:

• Cable No. 70180 Old Glory Red
• Cable No. 70001 White
• Cable No. 70075 Old Glory Blue

Joe McMillan, 25 January 2000

Old Glory Red (PMS 193C), White, and Old Glory Blue (PMS 281C)

(From: http://www.fotw.us/flags/us.html)

According to this site [2] these colors in RGB are:

• Old Glory Red: BF0A30
• Old Glory Blue: 002868

—Cantus…☎ 09:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

---

The official colors given by the US Embassy in London [3]:

• Old Glory Red: PMS 193C (Solid Color, Coated), is approximately RGB 191, 10, 48 = BF0A30
• Old Glory Blue: PMS 281C is approximately RGB 0, 40, 104 = 002868
• White = RGB 255, 255, 255 is FFFFFF

#BF0A30

#002868

white

--Jacobolus 23:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SVG version discussions

I am going to start using the "clone" function, based on what was I was told, and see if we could knock the image size down a few notches. Zscout370 (sound off) 06:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Note that the SVG file size has no effect on the generated PNG file size. Also, the original flag's height was divisible by 13, which is sort of nice; your new version has height 300, so each of the 13 stripes is 23.07 pixels high. 741x390 would be slightly nicer. dbenbenn | talk 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I put it back into the original size (130 hoist), and the cloning is done. Zscout370 (sound off) 19:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea about using the <use> tag. I never knew about that tag, and it simplifies things a lot. I've uploaded a new version, completely rewritten to use that tag. I increased the hoist by a lot. It's important for the height to be divisible by 39, so that the star positions can be specified exactly. Also, it's nice to have the flag be at least 1280px wide, so it displays at full size on the description page. dbenbenn | talk 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

More about the colors: Flags of the World quotes the Texas Government Code, which apparently states

(b) The red and blue of the state flag are:

(1) the same colors used in the United States flag; and

(2) defined as numbers 193 (red) and 281 (dark blue) of the Pantone Matching System.

User:dbenbenn 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

From the article:

1/130=0.05384615...

1/130 was 0.00769230 last time I checked. --67.172.99.160 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

-You're right, 1/130 isn't 0.053..., but 7/130 is. I've changed it in the article so that it's correct now. --Tobias Schmidbauer 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I was trying to save-then-upload the image over to the OLPC wiki at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg. I'm getting an error "Error creating thumbnail: convert: Non-conforming drawing primitive definition `polygon'." Any ideas? Charles Merriam 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this appears to be related to https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-154, specifically that ImageMagick's built in SVG handling cannot deal with this code, and, for the OLPC wiki, ImageMagick will need to be recompiled with RSVG libraries. Charles Merriam 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't like "polygon" it's fairly easy to convert a polygopn path to an ordinary path... AnonMoos 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

There is still some room for improvements.

Each little star currently consists of 5 triangles, but a pentagram only needs 3 triangles.

Example:

5gon star radius = 1; -> triangle hypotehnuse ~= 0,955;

<polygon id="pt" points="-0.4775 -0.1545, 0 0.191, 0.4775 -0.1545" fill="#fff"/>
<g id="star">
  <use xlink:href="#pt"/>
  <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/>
  <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/>
</g>

Only 3 triangles are needed, no additional scale factor.

Here an final implementation:

File:Flag_of_America_19_10.svg

djmj 1:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions regarding color

New flag.. (could use help on filesize)

I noticed that the old svg flag had colors which don't quite match up with the correct Pantone swatches in Illustrator. This version should be accurate. If someone can figure out how to apply the exact colors from this version to the last version, keeping the much smaller filesize, that would be great. --Jacobolus 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm confused. The two svg files preview with slightly different colors, but looking at the source, they use the same color values. Maybe there's some sort of ICC profile mismatch? Dunno, I'm stumped. I've reverted to the old flag. --Jacobolus 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert to last version

{{Editprotected}} The current version is incorrect. It should be reverted to the version dated 14 May 2008. The blue is BB133E, while it should be BF0A30, and the red is 002664, even though it should be 002868. See en:Flag of the United States#Colors. Guy0307 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct colors

#BF0A30

#002868

white

Current (and correct) colors

#BB133E

#002664

#fffff

•  Done Huib talk 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While it does actually pain me slightly to align myself with Zscout370, I have to say this revert is baseless. The hex codes Guy0307 refers to are not referenced... or rather they are (sort of), but if you actually input the PMS colors into Pantone's converter web app, you will in fact get Zscout370's colors, not Guy0307's. Apparently one w:User:OCNative opted to change the hex colors over two years ago without providing a ref, and no one has bothered to question them until now. An admin should do more than take text at face value, he should verify the references. This reversion should be reverted, and while you're at it why don't you guys unprotect the file so this is an actual wiki again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

w:Flag of the United States color codes fixed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the referenced information. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Turned out the old colors are correct. I was just looking at the article, and I saw the color in the article and in the SVG don't match up, and since the colors in the article were referenced, I assumed they are correct. It's good the article is correct now.. Guy0307 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time when we were figuring out colors, the Pantone site was not up. Now that it is, a lot of the images were switched to the Pantone site. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was up, someone just switched them and nobody caught it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally: actual authoritative colors

Hi everyone,

I just figured out that I have access to old articles from the Journal of the Optical Society of America. One of them includes the spectrophotometric measurements and adopted standards (for the "TCCA Standard Color Card of America, ninth edition, and the U.S. Army Color Card") relative to which the Flag colors are defined. (Apparently there’s a 10th edition of this standard, but I don’t know where obviously to find it, and my guess is that these definitions did not change between the 9th and 10th editions.)

In particular, the colors for red, white, and blue, in Munsell renotations and xyY, and with sRGB shown below each swatch (converted by me from xyY to sRGB by first taking the white point to be a perfectly diffusing reflector, then using CAT02 for chromatic adaptation from Illuminant C to Illuminant D₆₅, then converting XYZ to sRGB space and applying the sRGB nonlinearity), are respectively:

• TCCA Cable No. 70180, Old Glory Red: 5.5R 3.3 / 11.1, x=0.560, y=0.308, Y=0.082
• TCCA Cable No. 70001, White: 2.5Y 8.8 / 0.7, x=0.320, y=0.327, Y=0.753
• TCCA Cable No. 70075, Old Glory Blue: 8.2PB 2.3 / 6.1, x=0.229, y=0.186, Y=0.040

#9B1C2C

#E3DED4

#33335F

I’m not sure whether we care about making white different from a computer display white, but the red and blue – at least – should be updated, especially since whoever changed the colors from the ones I had put in a version of this flag a couple years ago didn’t really provide much justification for the change.

The paper, for anyone who has access to the Optics InfoBase, is: Genevieve Reimann, Deane B. Judd, and Harry J. Keegan, “Spectrophotometric and Colorimetric Determination of the Colors of the TCCA Standard Color Cards”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 36, 128–128 (1946)

For what it’s worth, these colors seem to me much more representative of the American flags I have seen than the colors currently being used.

Personally, I would opt for using the standard’s white definition as well, since real real cloth is not a perfectly diffusing reflector, but I could go either way on that. –Jacobolus (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I’ve copied this over to w:Talk:Flag of the United States. That’s probably a better place to have the discussion, with more people watching it than this image page here. So post any responses discussion yonder. –Jacobolus (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there was some amount of discussion over at Wikipedia, and the consensus preferred that white stay white, so all of the colors were interpreted relative to a “white point” of reflectance Y=0.753. The resulting colors are:

#B22234

#FFFFFF

#3C3B6E

I’ve requested at the admin notice-board (link over here) that this page be unprotected so I can add the information from w:Flag of the United States#Colors to the description page, and swap out the image for a file based on these colors, w:File:Recolored Flag of the United States-d.svg. Cheers, –Jacobolus (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrible shape

I have never seen the Old Glory in pink and purple. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes ! The previous version is much better in my opinion. Mightymights (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the new cable colors, but no way to actually see what the shades are. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)}

10th Edition The standard color reference of America

Ok, it seems that people are still very unhappy about the colors used on this image. I managed to find the document "A-A 52696: Flag, National, United States of America, Internment" that is published by the Department of Defense. In this document, published in 1996, list the Red cable color as 80108 and the Blue color as 80075 (white is 80002). The book is available from the Smithsonian at http://siris-libraries.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!295849!0 for it to be checked out, but not sure exactly how can one check this out or even what the contents are. I think we need to take a look at this since the 9th edition colors are no longer used official in this document or the updated version of DDD-F-416. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such official color specifications are defined in a device-independent way, while the RGB colors in computer SVG files are device-dependent, which means that there's no one correct conversion. A fully correct conversion could only take place relative to a particular computer monitor with specific display characteristics viewed under specified ambient lighting conditions -- and such a conversion would not be correct for other computer set-ups. AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if we cannot get the RGB to be exact, we can use the same techniques that we got the 9th edition colors and apply them to this one. I just want to use the current colors as much as possible, despite not everyone going to have the best screens for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I had posted some links quite a while ago at en:Talk:Flag of the United States#Color_specifications; I think the most current specification is the 2005 DDD-F-416F document. They do not give the actual cable numbers, but they do say (section 3.5) that the colors are the ones defined in the Standard Color Reference of America, 10th Edition (the book you linked above at the Smithsonian) as "Old Glory Red", "White", and "Old Glory Blue". And now after looking at your document (link here), it says the same thing, and does give those cable numbers, cool. (This shows that doc got deactivated, then reactivated again, FWIW.) While I don't have a really good grasp of color theory, and the above conversions look like they had an awful lot of work put into them, I tend to agree the result does not pass the "eye test" at least on the monitors I use (which span different computers and OSes). It just looks off. It would be interesting to follow the same process above but using the newer reference, to see if it results in anything different, definitely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct Colors

{{Editprotected}} The correct colors of the flag, according to the United State Department of State (http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/Content/documents/style_guide_public_hi.pdf), are as follows:

#BB133E

#002147

#FFFFFF

Please make this change. Baradys (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

First, RGB colors are inherently device-dependent, so that there's no one single conversion from a device-independent color system to RGB which is correct in all circumstances. Also, the document you linked to is interesting, but it's an internal State Department document, to ensure that materials prepared for the department will meet departmental standards. AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a note into File:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg#Image_notes. Let's consider it's  Done. whym (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Another complaint regarding colors

Well, it's been a few years, but time for another one of these.

First, it's blindingly obvious that #3C3B6E is not an appropriate color to represent blue on the U.S. flag. Anyone who has ever seen a U.S. flag would be able to tell that it is off.

I'm not of the belief that the Standard Color Reference of America should be used in the first place. Its authoritative status is questionable at best. If Wikimedia is going to use it as the source, we should be consistent and use the color labeled "National Flag Blue" instead of the current "Old Glory Blue". Of course, that would be a problem, as "National Flag Blue" is very nearly black!

And as previously pointed out, the colors sourced are from an outdated version of the Standard Color Reference of America, so this should be corrected, if nothing else.

JoshuaKGarner (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Yeah i've gotta agree. This blue is very wrong and needs to be changed. The blue might not be standardized but it definitely isn't what is currently used. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:CD58:1310:896F:E619:988C:AA4A (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, computer RGB colors are inherently "device-dependent", while flag colors are specified in "device-independent" color systems, so there's no one conversion of a flag color specification to RGB which is correct in all circumstances. AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

---

I agree that the colors are definitely a little off on many device screens. I checked 5 different device screens I have access to, and only one of them showed colors that matched the actual flag colors fairly well. I did the same test using the colors defined in this government document: United States Department of State Identity and Marking Standards, and all the devices looked appropriate with those colors. I see this document (or maybe an earlier version of it) has been discussed before and had been decided against because it's an internal State Department document. Still, I propose we go by that document for the following reasons:

• The current colors used, while scientifically accurate based on a paper done over 70 years ago, does not seem to work well with today's electronic devices. My own personal test and the color discussions above show this.
• The only U.S. government document I have been able to find that defines RGB colors in any official way is the one I linked above.
• I believe it being an internal State Department document is not enough of a reason to disregard it. The geometric specifications we use here are also based on an internal government document (an executive order). If we are OK with using an internal government document to specify the geometry, it's logical we should do the same for the colors.

Gemini-Two (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Agreeing with all of the above, and adding that since physical manufacture will always be imperfect, we should be designing for screens first, and .svg files do not embed Pantone/Cable colors, only RGB - we should be using the RGB values defined by the state department (#B31942 and #0A3161). An updated/current version of that document is available at https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/eca_design_guide.pdf TheTaraStark (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. BlinxTheKitty (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2023

{{Edit request}} Please change hex values of red and blue to #B31942 and #0A3161, respectively.

The colors of this SVG file were chosen over a decade ago based on an RGB approximation of color standards that predate the existence of the RGB colorspace. Since then, the US Department of State has released new authoritative RGB specs (per w:Flag of the United States#Color and the DOS ECA style guide (https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/state_department_u.s._flag_style_guide.pdf).

(This change may also resolve frequent complaints that the shade of blue is too close to a purple hue on most screens.)

Thanks! TheTaraStark (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested update to protected image on 22 January 2023

For ease of updating, I've uploaded an updated version with the correct colors at File:Flag of the United States (DoS ECA Color Standard).svg

This update changes the hex values of red and blue to #B31942 and #0A3161, respectively.

The colors of the current SVG file were chosen over a decade ago based on an RGB approximation of color standards that predate the existence of the RGB colorspace. Since then, the US Department of State has released new authoritative RGB specs (per w:Flag of the United States#Color and the DOS ECA style guide (https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/state_department_u.s._flag_style_guide.pdf).

(This change may also resolve frequent complaints that the shade of blue is too close to a purple hue on most screens.)

Thanks! TheTaraStark (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

TheTaraStark  Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Some edits (also mostly ignore previous header)

Alright, I've done a bit of editing of the file, adding some metadata, including a link back to this page, and making the file fit in an 80 column width. It increases the file size a bit, but it's still < 4k, and metadata is always good. :) --Jacobolus 08:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, metadata is a good thing! I'm no expert, but I think the current version isn't valid SVG code. In the <svg> tag on line 3 is a definition for the xmlns:xlink namespace, but there's no definition anywhere for xmlns:rdf, xmlns:rdfs, xmlns:dc. I think I've seen SVG files that had additional URLs for defining those metadata tags. Do you know anything about that? User:dbenbenn 17:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a validator somewhere? W3C says their HTML validator can handle SVG: "It also supports XHTML Family document types such as XHTML+MathML and XHTML+MathML+SVG, and also other markup vocabularies such as SVG." I can't seem to find it though. Also, I'm most delighted to see in what detail you people examine this file, striving for everything to be perfect. Such correctness is something I really love about Wikipedia! —Bromskloss 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

License

Surely {{PD-OpenClipart}} is no longer relevant considering how the flag (and it's code) look now. /Lokal_Profil 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of this Image

I consider the name of this flag image wrong. The name of the state in question is United States or USA not the United States (even if a wrong spelling redirect exists). Similary ill-named include Image:Flag of the People's Republic of China2.svg. We don't have a Image:Flag of the Iraq or Image:Flag of the Belgium or any other Flag of the <Whatsoever state. So the name of this image should be changed immidiately, even if its used on 200.000+ pages -- maybe because of that, because we tell the people something incorrect. --Matthiasb 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the image is the same as the English wikipedia article en:Flag of the United States... AnonMoos 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More image notes (version of 00:43, 14 May 2008)

For the current version of the image (version of 00:43, 14 May 2008), an effort was made to simplify the SVG file and tighten the file size. This happens to result in a reduced file size of 1776 characters (recalling the Declaration of Independence) on 50 lines (evoking the States of the Union). Coincidentally, the longest line in the file turns out to be line no. 7, checking in at 77 columns. This also happens to recall the year the original 13-star Old Glory was adopted (1777). Plus, three sevens are supposed to be lucky. Or maybe I’m just superstitious having grown up in the South. —Technion 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Czech description

{{Editprotected}}

Please add to description

{{cs|[[Flag|Vlajka]] [[United States|Spojených Států]]}}

--sevela.p (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Waldir ^talk 09:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Albanian description

{{Editprotected}}

You may also add the albanian description

{{sq|[[Flag|Flamuri]] i [[United States|Shteteve të Bashkuara]]}}

--Cradel (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Waldir ^talk 08:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian description

{{Editprotected}}

Please add Russian description:

{{ru|[[:ru:Флаг|Флаг]] [[United States|Соединённых Штатов Америки]].}}

SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Albedo

hey this image is way to bright i see the flag everyday and i would apprecaite if you would please make it darker thank you -- 18:22, 4 December 2008 64.160.203.139

Actually, using "#002868" for blue and "#bf0a30" is plenty dark already, and certainly a long way from the cartoony versions of these colors ("#0000ff" and "#ff0000"). Anyway, the RGB color-system is inherently device-dependent (not to mention lighting-dependent)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"pop-up" description

I would like all flags to have "some" text when people "mouse-over" the image... Or even have a link to the country article. Anyone know "what" text gets brought up upon "mouse-over". -- Mjquin id (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use the "thumb" parameter on a Wikipedia article etc., that used to happen automatically (but apparently not anymore)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish description

{{Editprotected}}

Mind adding the Spanish description?

{{es|La [[:es:bandera|bandera]] de los [[:es:Estados Unidos|Estados Unidos]]}}

Thanks ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done (And if you want to request an edit to a protected page, use {{Editprotected}} normally, do not wrap it in {{Tlx}}!) --Mormegil (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Add categorization

{{editprotected}} There's a nice categorization of flags going on, with subcategories for each country. However this image is not in it.

Please add this to category ( Category:SVG_flags_-_United_States_of_America ). The parent category is ( Category:SVG_flags ). Quite useful for easily browsing & finding.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickv (talk • contribs) 09:54, April 9, 2009 (UTC)

Added {{Editprotected}} --Yarnalgo (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done --Mormegil (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Things to add

This file should be added to these categories:

• Category:Blue, red, white flags
• Category:SVG sovereign state flags

I would also like to see these added to the description:

Chamoru: Banderan Estados Unidos

Esperanto: Flago de Usono

Français : Drapeau des États-Unis

Hawaiʻi: Ka hae ‘Amelika Hui Pū ‘ia

Latina: Vexillum Civitatum Foederatarum Americae

Diné bizaad: Wááshindoon bikéyah ałhidadiidzooígíí dáh naat'á'i'

Homo lupus (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. For the next time: When requesting an edit to a protected page, add {{Editprotected}}, some admin would notice sooner. --Mormegil (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Homo lupus (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a revised set to add:

{{Editprotected}}

Ænglisc: Geānlǣhtra Rīca American fana

Chamoru: Banderan Estados Unidos

ᏣᎳᎩ: ᎠᎺᎢ ᎦᏓᏘ

Čeština: Vlajka Spojených států amerických

Cymraeg: Baner yr Unol Daleithiau America

Dansk: Amerikas Forenede Stater's flag

Deutsch: Flagge der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika

English: Flag of the United States

Esperanto: Flago de Usono

Español: Bandera de los Estados Unidos de América

Français : Drapeau des États-Unis d'Amérique

Gaeilge: Bratach na Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá

Gàidhlig: Bratach na Stàitean Aonaichte

Gaelg: Brattagh ny Steatyn Unnaneysit America

Hawaiʻi: Ka hae ‘Amelika Hui Pū ‘ia

Interlingue: Flagga del Unit States de America

日本語: 米合衆国の国旗

Kernowek: Baner Statys Unys Amerika

Latina: Vexillum Civitatum Foederatarum Americae

Novial: Flage de Unionati States de Amerika

Normaund: Couleu d's Êtats Unnis d'Améthique

Diné bizaad: Wááshindoon Bikéyah Ałhidadiidzooígíí bidah naatʼaʼí

Deitsch: Faahne vun die Vereenichde Schaate vun Amerikaa

Русский: Флаг Соединённых Штатов Америки

Scots: Banner o the Unitit States o Americae

Gagana Samoa: Fu'a o Iunaite Sitete o Amerika

Shqip: Flamuri i Shteteve të Bashkuara

Svenska: Amerikas förenta staternas flagga

Tagalog: Watawat ng Estados Unidos ng Amerika

Homo lupus (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

The Pennsylvania German entry should be changed to

Deitsch: Faahne vun die Vereenichde Schaate vun Amerikaa

to correct a linking error. Homo lupus (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Common Good (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} A few things this time: correction of a linking error with Anglo-Saxon description, addition of a Dutch description, and a change of the English description to the country's full name to be consistant with the others.

Ænglisc: Geānlǣhtra Rīca American fana

English: Flag of the United States of America

Nederlands: Vlag van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika

Homo lupus (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Justass (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I made a change to the Navajo description and made an Italian description to add:

Diné bizaad: Wááshindoon Bikéyah Ałhidadiidzooígíí bidah naatʼaʼí

Italiano: Bandiera degli Stati Uniti d'America

Also, the file should be added to these categories: [[Category:Flags with more than twenty stars]] [[Category:Flags with stars, left]] [[Category:Flags with stars, up]] [[Category:Flags with red and white stripes]] [[Category:Flags with thirteen stripes]] [[Category:Flags with white five-pointed stars]] Homo lupus (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Mormegil (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding

Hi! Please add this to the description: Svenska:Förenta staternas flagga

Thanks,Kstaden (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish Description

{{Editprotected}}

Please add to description

{{ga|[[Flag|Bratach]] na [[:ga:Stáit Aontaithe|Stát Aontaithe]]}}

86.41.133.15 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kwj2772 (msg) 08:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

restoration of newlines

{{Editprotected}} SVG loses much of its usefulness if it's unreadable, and removing newlines makes it so — please restore them, it's not worth it for 329 bytes.
While you're at it why don't you guys unprotect the file so this is an actual wiki again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in the image source, so you can just copy that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, until one of you 'tards delete all of those. After all, what is the point of saving a whopping 329 bytes if we're still hosting another 206 kilobytes? (or: what [further] is the point of shaving off another 329 bytes if we're still hosting another 206 kilobytes) ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've lowered the page's protection level. Do whatever needs to be done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still protected. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC) handled per email Huib talk 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Code

I see what you mean about the newlines, but really, each line should not take up four lines of code. I will paste the code I think would be best:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650">
<defs><polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/>
<g id="star"><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/><use xlink:href="#pt"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/><use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/></g>
<g id="s5"><use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/><use xlink:href="#star"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/></g>
<g id="s6"><use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/><use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/></g>
<g id="x4"><use xlink:href="#s6"/><use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/><use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/><use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/></g>
<g id="u"><use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/><use xlink:href="#x4"/><use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/></g>
<rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/></defs>
<rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/>
<rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/>
<use xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/></svg>

The leading space is for display purposes and will not be in the actual SVG code. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's still pretty unreadable. It's a plain text format, and should be readable, especially given how much actual hand coding has gone into this and other images. Otherwise we may as well have been using some ultra-compressed binary format. Server load concerns are a problem for rsvg and whatever else is used for image caching, not the source code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If I was trying to make it user-editable, I would probably go for something more like the following:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650">
<defs>
  <polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/>
  <g id="star">
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/>
  </g>
  <g id="s5">
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/>
  </g>
  <g id="s6">
    <use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/>
  </g>
  <g id="x4">
    <use xlink:href="#s6"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/>
  </g>
  <g id="u">
    <use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/>
    <use xlink:href="#x4"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/>
  </g>
  <rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/>
</defs>
<rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/>
<rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/>
<use xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/>
</svg>

Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is readable, and conservative. I would support this version. –blurpeace ^(talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a strange suggestion. Zscout obviously won't care for it because it's virtually identical to the version he replaced. By the same token we could just revert to that version that he replaced. We don't need a compromise to satisfy just Zscout. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Things aren't as obvious as you see them. Zscout seemingly supports the proposed revision by Carl Lindberg. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is worse than obvious, it's exactly what I have come to expect from Zscout. He makes radical decisions that he doesn't actually care about, leaving others to deal with the mess when he abruptly and inevitably loses interest. Nearly two weeks and this is what we've managed to do:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
  "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1235" height="650">
<defs>
  <polygon id="pt" points="-0.1624598481164531,0 0,-0.5 0.1624598481164531,0" transform="scale(0.0616)" fill="#fff"/>       
  <g id="star">
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-144)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(-72)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(72)"/>
    <use xlink:href="#pt" transform="rotate(144)"/>
  </g>
  <g id="s5">
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.252"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="-0.126"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.126"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.252"/>
  </g>
  <g id="s6">
    <use xlink:href="#s5" x="-0.063"/>
    <use xlink:href="#star" x="0.315"/>
  </g>
  <g id="x4">
    <use xlink:href="#s6"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.054"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.108"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s5" y="0.162"/>
  </g>
  <g id="union"> id="u">
    <use xlink:href="#x4" y="-0.216"/>
    <use xlink:href="#x4"/>
    <use xlink:href="#s6" y="0.216"/>
  </g>
  <rect id="stripe" width="1235" height="50" fill="#BB133E"/>
</defs>
<rect width="1235" height="650" fill="#fff"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="100"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="200"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="300"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="400"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="500"/>
<use xlink:href="#stripe" y="600"/>
<rect width="494" height="350" fill="#002664"/>
<use xlink:href="#union" xlink:href="#u" transform="translate(247,175) scale(650)"/>
</svg>

If Zscout really cared about removing newlines, why did we just spend nearly two weeks to end up with him switching to a version nearly identical to the one he replaced. If you guys opposed removing all newlines, you should've just left the reversion, instead you're enabling this tedious behavior. This is bureaucratic nonsense — the entire ordeal was for nothing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Code reduction suggestions

With interest I read all the contributions there. The file has a long, long history with numerous versions, very differently coded, and with all file sizes between (now) 1 490 and 40 560 (Adobe!) bytes; one version looks more complicated than the other, and all are larger than one KB.

Of course it is possible to draw this flag without any transformation.

The result of some simplifications is Flag of the USA.svg, that is the same drawing (save a few bytes for pixel fractions - these 8 bytes added again it would look exactly identical) as this one. Even if it is thought necessary to calculate every point following the Design of the Flag of the United States the drawing can be done much less complicated than the current version. -- sarang사랑 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A cute trick with the stroke-dasharray, but the red stripes are not confined within the bounding box. Keeping all flag drawing elements within the rectangle is desirable if the SVG file is to be re-used as general clip-art (see File:Flag of South Africa.svg), and is something to keep in mind if you want to claim that your flag SVG is most optimized of all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Never thought about that. There are many pics in the Commmons with large parts drawn outside boxes. I simplified often drawings by letting parts leave the visible box area. I choose
<path stroke="#B22234" stroke-width="2470" stroke-dasharray="50" d="m0,0v651"/>
because it is a bit smaller than the (more correct)
<path stroke="#B22234" stroke-width="1235" stroke-dasharray="50" d="m617.5,0v651"/>
It is not my desire to create the most optimized version of all; following more the design rules will make the file a bit larger than 719 bytes. But I want to proof that all the transforms can be omitted. -- sarang사랑 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

By "most-optimized" I meant "all-round best" (with file-size being just one criterion among others). AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

viewport attribute

Per http://www.seowarp.com/blog/2011/06/svg-scaling-problems-in-ie9-and-other-browsers/, it would be nice if this image had a viewport attribute applied to that it can be used (with scaling) in various browers.

With well-known flags with purely geometric specifications, there's some tenssion between competing to find the smallest SVG file which will display in RSVG vs. coming up with a general-purpose clip-art type SVG, which will be useful outside of Wikimedia... AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

stars spacing issue when looking at high resolution

{{Editprotected}} Please, see also DR. The user proposes to change this file to his version as this file has spacing issues (for me, too) - File:Flag of the United States (50 stars).svg rubin16 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The deletion request was closed as "delete", though there is agreement to replace this file with this one. Therefore, I am requesting that to be done. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It does for me, in three browsers, on three OSs and without being logged in at Google. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No idea what's the problem here, but your flag now exists as File:Flag of the United States (2).svg ready for a COM:UPDATE request. I can't judge it, the current version, a 695 bytes version, and your 899 bytes version all work for me (Chrome on Windows 7.) –Be..anyone (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

For those without Firefox, here is a screenshot of how the current file looks in that browser.

@Be..anyone: I didn't know about the COM:UPDATE page – is it more efficient than a normal {{Edit request}}? SiBr₄ (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dunno what's more efficient, but the edit request backlog is almost 90 at the moment counting technical and unclear requests, while COM:UPDATE is clean—all answered, one fresh. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Don't see any actual problems with File:Flag of the United States (2).svg (though the "boustrophedon" method of drawing the white stripes is a little idiosyncratic)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The boustrophedon method for drawing parallel pathes is a good solution, comparable to the dasharrahy method as used by Flag of the USA.svg. sarang♥사랑 07:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @SiBr4: , @Be..anyone: , et all! I am wondering what to do with this edit request. Uploading File:Flag of the United States (2).svg here? Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please overwrite this file with the file at File:Flag of the United States (2).svg (and delete the latter file afterwards). SiBr₄ (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! Steinsplitter (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)