Talk:Flag of NATO

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cold War Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Heraldry and vexillology Flag of NATO is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

A fact from Flag of NATO appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the flag of NATO (pictured) was first hoisted on November 9, 1953, at the opening ceremony of the Atlantic Exhibition in Paris? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of NATO.

Didn't this emblem on flag was made in 90ties not 1953? There was some contest about new NATO emblem or something like that. 159.148.71.250 12:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is this flag even used? ive never seen it anywhere, on the web, at military bases, anything. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in plenty of places. Perhaps you should try to be a little less ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.47.24 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little bit more history behind this logo, available on NATO's website, that has a specific history section. The emblem shown in the article is the modern one, but there is an earlier version. It has other names i.g. star. Also, I would like to know the history of the big metal sculpture that sits outside the Brussels HQ - which regrettably is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia. I have scoured the web, have found numerous questions about it, but no answers. This at the very least looks like that it will either take a trip to a university library, or quite possible a trip to the NATOs headquarters in Brussels. I really do not see much way around this, as the material generated would need to fit within Wikipedia's licensing terms. Nodekeeper (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda28 reached out to me for a second opinion on the flag color for the NATO flag. I downloaded the NATO Visual Identity Guideline document that 475847394d347339 linked and did a keyword search for flag. While the logo and flag color of the flag that 475847394d347339 posted is in the document on page 14, however section "1.5.6 Protection of logo integrity" which is listed on the same page states, Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo... The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280. which is the color of flag that is in the navigation box. In conclusion, I am inclined to agree with Garuda28 that 475847394d347339 is interpenetrating it incorrectly. The compass of the logo are the same, but the flag color is PM 280, which is a darker blue than the one 475847394d347339 is referring to as a 2016 color change. Neovu79 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't know why NATO published a flag in this color when PMS 280 is noted as the official color code. 475847394d347339 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since they don’t explicitly state it, that section should be removed Garuda28 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the flag is page 14. [1] The color is RGB 0-73-144. This is identical to the darker color of the top two compass logos on page 6. However, it is not identical to the colors of any of the lower three compasses. The note to the left of the third logo from the bottom is incorrect, it is not RGB 0-73-144. Also, none of the colors is CMYK 100C-72M-0Y-18K, which is RGB 0-59-209, as converted by GIMP. In any case, the darker colors of the upper two compasses is used in the flag. Thus, the explanation "The above CMYK definition of the logo colours is not based on the computer-generated automatic conversion of PMS colours into CMYK, or vice versa, but has been made as a deliberate, conscientious choice to obtain a stronger visual impact" on page 6 does not apply to the RGB 0-73-144 color. 475847394d347339 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that we can take this analysis of the color in the flag of this document to be an alternate flag, unless it is explicitly stated. Anything else appears to lean far to much to WP:ANALYSIS. Unless it is directly stated by NATO that this is a new coloration, I do not agree that this should be added as a variation or change (to echo what was said by user:Neovu79. Do you have any direct statements from NATO on an alternate or redesigned flag? That would change all of this. Garuda28 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any statement clarifying this flag any more than the statement found under the flag that says "NATO flag." 475847394d347339 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any statement explicitly stating that the flag has been changed or has variations it doesn’t seem that a section on this can be added. However, if this changes in the future I’d be all on board. Garuda28 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it in mind. I don't know where they have found this flag. 475847394d347339 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep my eyes out for it as well. Garuda28 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also keep my eyes open for any additional information. Neovu79 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no publication on the flag, it's clear that NATO uses both flags broader than a 3:4 ratio and colors lighter than Pantone 280.

https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/topics_151400.htm?
Page 18: 3:5 ratio flag using RGB 15-75-143
Page 94: 3:4 ratio flag color approximates RGB 0-73-144
Page 230: a 3:5 ratio flag is flying, color seems to be Pantone 280
Page 340/498: a 3:5 ratio flag is flying, color uncertain
515: Pantone 280 flag
518: color lighter than Pantone 280
558: banner looks to be wider than 3:4, Pantone 280
570: flag flying broader than 3:4
568: Pantone 280 flag
581: Pantone 280 flag
595: Lighter than Pantone 280
661: Flag flynig broader than 3:4

https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/topics_152773.htm?
88-89 flag flying broader than 3:4 and lighter than Pantone 280

https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/topics_157476.htm?
232: Pantone 280 flag with 3:5 ratio

I think we should term the section "Unofficial colors and ratios."

475847394d347339 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ANALYSIS prohibits us from analyzing sources like this. If it’s gonna be added it must be explicitly stated directly. We can’t do anything unless that happens. Garuda28 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they will continue to use alternative colors and ratios without formerly recognizing any. Instances of printed flags instead of pictures of flying, standing, or hanging flags may not be WP:ANALYSIS. 475847394d347339 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is directly stated there is nothing that can be added. Everything needs to be explicitly sourced. Garuda28 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's clear that the two instances I found of flags in an unofficial color and ratio, one in the Visual Identity Guidelines and one in the map of NATO mission in Afghanistan are both meant to represent NATO (using a flag instead of a logo). The VIG actually states it as "NATO flag." [2] Instead of reaching a conclusion, it can be noted that two instances of unofficial color and ratio were used. 475847394d347339 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is explicitly stated it should not be added. Anything else violates WP:ANALYSIS. This has been stated many times. Simply put, Unless it is said to be an unofficial variation we cannot say it is one. °Garuda28 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious that these flags are meant to represent NATO. I don't think there is reason for analysis here. NATO published the same vector version of the flag also in the "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014." page 8. [3] We are not analyzing anything here but simply stating two instances of this particular unofficial flag. Let's note "an alternate ratio and color has been published bearing this ratio and this color in these two publications." Why do you think it is ambiguous that these flags represent NATO? 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already stated my thoughts, as has the other user above. Currently consensus appears to be against the addition - however that does not mean it cannot change. Why don’t you put a request for comment at WP:MILHIST? We can get some more people to comment and get some more opinions. Garuda28 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two flags here. The size of the star is somewhat different.

This flag uses an alternate color for the blue used in the flag of NATO and presented on page 14 of the 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines published by NATO [4]. The flag uses a RGB 0-73-144 color instead of Pantone 280, and is presented in a 3:5 ratio instead of 3:4. The particular color for blue is is also found on page 6 of the Visual Identity Guidelines document used in NATO logos.

The flag with a slightly smaller star also appears on page 8 of the "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" [5]. The color is also used for the logo on the front page of the "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" and the background color for text on the front page.

The use of the flag is rare on NATO documents because of a recommendation noted on page 14 of the 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines which notes "Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo. The NATO flag can be used for illustrative purposes." However, although this can't be shown, the proper flag was also absent in all the recent documents I have looked at. [6]

My suggestion is to note the use of this alternate flag in a separate section of the article, possibly "alternative color and ratio" or "Unofficial variants/uses."

• 
  2016 Visual Identity Guidelines
• 
  Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014

475847394d347339 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC) The official color and ratio of the Flag of NATO is Pantone 280 and 3:4. However, an alternate flag with a 3:5 ratio and lighter color is used referring to "NATO flag" in a 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines and "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" with a small variation in the size of the star. Use of flag is rare in NATO documents because of a recommendation to use logos instead, and the proper flag doesn't appear in any recent document either. My position is to create a new section titled "Alternative color and ratio." More information on the Talk page.[reply]

(edit conflict) This is an invalid RfC: there is no statement of the matter to be discussed. See how it appears at the RfC listings. I refer you to WP:RFC and in particular WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official color and ratio of the Flag of NATO is Pantone 280 and 3:4. However, an alternate flag with a 3:5 ratio and lighter color is used referring to "NATO flag" in a 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines and "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" with a small variation in the size of the star. Use of flag is rare in NATO documents because of a recommendation to use logos instead, and the proper flag doesn't appear in any recent document either. My position is to create a new section titled "Alternative color and ratio" or "Unofficial variants/uses." More information on the Talk page. 475847394d347339 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Garuda28 has made a statement on this talk page "I’ve already stated my thoughts, as has the other user above. Currently consensus appears to be against the addition" and numerous uses of the word "consensus" in a conversation on his talk page that he believes there is a consensus against this addition because of a statement User_talk:Garuda28#Flag_of_NATO_color Talk:Flag_of_NATO#Flag_of_NATO_color made by Neovu79 because of a request made by Garuda28 to Neovu79. Garuda28 noted by looking at page 6 of the NATO Visual Identity Guideline document that he believes the "the document deals with the logo, not the flag," at the time not looking at the flag on page 14 of that document that displays the flag and noting "NATO flag." Neovu79 also replied that "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280," thus disregarding the legitimacy of the new flag. However, since then, another instance of the flag has been found, and it will, in my opinion, be clearly noted that this flag does not comply with official regulation. Garuda28 wrongly claims that Neovu79's statement constitutes an opinion against putting this flag on the article. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that these statements are being taken out of context. For a full context please look here (User talk:Garuda28#Flag of NATO). Furthermore I did not request that User:Neovu79 comment, but rather asked an uninvolved user to take a look at what I was seeing and tell me if they thought it was valid. He agreed with me that the above user was misinterpreting the provided source when they commented here out of their own free and non-prompted choice. This is a cut and paste case of WP:ANALYSIS, without any real textual evidence from secondary (or even primary sources) to indicate that there is a secondary or "unofficial" flag utilized by NATO. Garuda28 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What can be understood to be "misinterpreting the provided source" in Neovu79's opinion User_talk:Garuda28#Flag_of_NATO_color Talk:Flag_of_NATO#Flag_of_NATO_color is that this flag is not legitimate in view of the specification that Pantone 280 is the official color. However, Garuda28 presently claims that NATO must specify that the uses of the flag actually refer to NATO. While page 14 of the 2016 NATO Visual Identity Guideline notes on page 14 that the flag is "NATO flag." Page 8 of the Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 uses this flag, apparently to represent NATO, among flags of Germany, Iran, United States, and Turkey. It is clear that if the other flags are meant to refer to the specific countries, the blue flag is also meant to represent NATO. 475847394d347339 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While I do not always necessarily agree with many of wiki's policies and guidelines, they are in place to uphold the integrity and factuality of this online encyclopedia and WP:ANALYSIS is pretty cut and dry. We should not represent something to be true, without the source stating that it is such, as stated in Wikipedia:IC. Something similar to this came up on John W. Troxell page when his ribbon rack was removed from the page, even though his ribbons are clearly visible in his official portrait. While page 14 of the 2016 NATO Visual Identity Guideline notes on page 14 notes the general design as the flag is "NATO flag" as well as page 8 of the Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014, the footnote does not notate it as an official color or as an alternate color of said flag, and without a general consensus of it being an official/alternate color of the flag, I have to agree with Garuda28 in that it should not be placed on the main page of Flag of NATO. Now, just because Garuda28 and I don't agree with you, if you can find an overwhelming number of people to support/agree with you, then you would have established Wikipedia:Consensus, in which case you would be allowed to place the variant colored flag on the main page. Neovu79 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: Please note, my proposition will abide by Wikipedia:IC. Page 14 of the NATO Visual Identity Guideline notes the flag being displayed is "NATO flag." In terms of page 8 of Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014, I still don't know why Wikipedia:IC requires NATO to expressly note that the blue flag is the flag of NATO. Is it also ambiguous that the other flags represent Germany, Iran, United States, and Turkey? 475847394d347339 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Neovu79 seems to have not responded to my clarification. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done any research nor can draw from any previous experience to comment on the flags or alternate flags (assuming that they are any because I personally do not know the answer) of Russia or Turkey. However in regards to the flag of the United States, we have only one official flag, and it's design specifications and official colors has not changed since July 4, 1960 and is covered extensively in U.S. law. I will not go into any further specifics within the law, because we aren't talking about the U.S. flag. Now unlike the NATO flag, the Flag of the United States section explains the reasoning, behind the variation in coloring of the U.S. flag and why such variations in colors is permissible within good-faith representation of the flag and includes of Wikipedia:Third-party sources along with its referenced sourcing from U.S. law. Now, I see that you have begun suggest alternatives for the inclusion your color variation. If you can note or include Wikipedia:Third-party sources and why there is variation in color and/or its usage, then I am all-for the inclusion of alternate flag coloring. Neovu79 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the documents provided do not state or annotate an alternate flag. Rather this conclusion appears to have come from the color analysis of a digital image, which does not seem to be the most reliable way of discerning this. Likewise the same document specifies the color of the NATO flag to be Pantone 280, which is correctly reflected in the current flag. For these reasons and inconsistencies I do not support the addition of this secondary/unofficial flag. Garuda28 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Oshwah noted positively toward an inclusion.

We have to discern whether a comparison of these two flags (page 14 of the NATO Visual Identity Guidelines and page 8 of Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 to the official flag conflicts with WP:ANALYSIS. Page page 14 of the NATO Visual Identity Guidelines both notes that the flag displayed is "NATO flag" and also that "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." We also have to discern whether these two flags can also be called "unofficial" or "alternative" flags. 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not, as comparing the sources to come up with some conclusion that the sources themselves do not state would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. And I did not come to the conclusion that User:Oshwah stated an opinion on the specific merits of this debate, outside of explaining guidance and guidelines. They certainly may comment if they wish, but I do not believe that it is good practice to state what one believes another user’s views to be unless they choose to involve themselves. Garuda28 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's not qualify the flags as "unofficial" but just show them and note where they have been used. We can at least say that they don't comply with the what is described as the official flag. Can we at least call them "other flags?" 475847394d347339 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced that using these images does not violate WP:ANALYSIS (since this is a color analysis of a digital image), but am willing to see what other users have to say. Hopefully some will come due to the RfC. Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't discern between these two and the official flag, we have to see them as the same. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case, as it specifies the color for the official flag as PNS 280, which the flag is. No color analysis needed as it is directly and clearly stated as fact. In essence it is spelled out in words without any room for confusion. Garuda28 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add two sections then, one called "Specifications for an official flag," and one titled "flags used." The latter will contain the three flags. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)475847394d347339 (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, woah, woah hold up now.... I'm going to quote what I said in my response to 475847394d347339 on my user talk page:

"[I]f the official documents specify that the flag exists and how and where it's used, then sure... you can certainly cite them as sources in the article to support the content. Just make sure that the content added reflects what is stated in the documents and doesn't add any additional analysis based off those sources (which would be disallowed per the big explanation message I left). If the documents don't state what you're adding as content in the article, you're going to need to locate and cite additional sources that support what you're adding, or it can't be added."

I supported 475847394d347339's inclusion of these documents as references to cite content with the assumption that the content being added directly reflects what is being stated in the sources cited. I do not support the addition of any kind of content to articles that contain any analysis or original research by users that draw their own conclusions. What sources you cite is completely irrelevant. No original research means no original research..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add two sections then, one called "Specifications for an official flag," and one titled "flags used." The latter will contain the three flags. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that the “alternate” flag colors were discerned through the use of color analysis, which, according to my interpretation, seems to violate WP:ANALYSIS. That, and the color of the flag is directly stated in the text as PNS 280 - directly contridicting the color analysis. Let’s wait for some more users to comment, since we seem to be talking in circles. Garuda28 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you still didn't say why you think WP:ANALYSIS allows you to compare the official color (PNS 280) to the official flag presently displayed, while WP:ANALYSIS forbids you to compare PNS 280 to the color of the two flags in question. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current flag displayed is in Pantone 280, which was explicitly stated within the document provided. Explicit sourcing is good. Coming to conclusions that are not directly stated is analysis. Garuda28 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is is Pantone/PMS 280 has been done with color analysis. You still didn't say why you think WP:ANALYSIS allows you to compare the official color (PNS 280) to the official flag presently displayed, while WP:ANALYSISS forbids you to compare PNS 280 to the color of the two flags in question. WP:ANALYSIS should also forbid you from compaing the official color to the flag presently displayed, and thus we have to present all flags in documents and not discern which is "official." 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve restated my points serveral times and we are arguing in circles. Other users will have to comment for consensus to change. Garuda28 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this "alternative flag" business is all about... are these "alternative flags" listed in the NATO Visual Guide document that I peeked at and does it state that they're to be regarded as official? What are these "alternatives" used for? Do you hoist them to the top of a flagpole and wave it? Or is it just a symbol used for other stuff? A country, nation, organization, or whatever usually have one flag that you hoist up to the top of the flagpole and say "Hey, look, that's my country, nation, whatever place!" I'm starting to question if you guys are discussing a dispute over something that has nothing to do with the article itself at all, here... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that states there are alternate flags at all. The issue seems to be that the digital flags within the documents don’t conform to the Pantone 280 that the NATO flag is stated to be in. Which really doesn’t seem like it should be an issue. A fresh pair of eyes couldn’t hurt though. Garuda28 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official flag has never been used anywhere. It was found by me in two websites, and color corrected by Rob984. NATO documents present only these two flags, and not any digital version of the current flag. I am trying to make a conciliatory proposal, not discern which flag is official and which is not, but introduce two sections "Specifications for an official flag," and one titled "flags used." However, Garuda28 says that WP:ANALYSIS allows him to compare the color of the flag currently being displayed to the official PNS 280 but not that of the other two flags. He can't ignore this point. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but there's still an official flag... and its symbol and colors are specified and outlined in that guide, right? Does that guide do that with any other flags? Because other documents don't throw a perfect replica of the NATO flag in them doesn't mean that those become official... it sounds like someone just did a crappy job photoshopping a flag into a document... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't know where this current flag even came from. At least, it matches with an old document [7], and that may conflict with WP:ANALYSIS, but it's the best thing we have. But there no question that page 14 of the 2016 NATO Visual Identity Guideline and page 8 of the Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 also present NATO flags. 475847394d347339 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so NATO doesn't officially specify in-depth what constitutes an "official flag" is in any of their documentation then? So we just gotta use what we got? Alright. Well...... the bottom of page 14 of that guide document has a picture of a flag that's labeled...... "NATO Flag". That's it. It doesn't list any other flags and call them "NATO Flag 2", or "The Other NATO Flag", or NATO whatever flag alternative ..... it seems to me like there's just... one flag then. Looks like a pretty open-and-shut conclusion to draw... lol. But if people disagree with that, then hey... that's what dispute discussions are about :-). I'm obviously not here to take sides, vote, or become involved in any of this... I'm just trying to be a completely objective medium of communication here and help you guys take what information you have and pull objective and level-headed data from it. However, other projects and editors are in need of my help... should you guys need me for anything, message me on my talk page and let me know. Good luck with this interesting debate, and I hope it comes to a positive and peaceful conclusion... All the best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[8] states that the ratio is 300:400 ie. 3:4 while page 14 of the 2016 NATO Visual Identity Guideline states "The official colour code for the blue is PMS 280." The two flags I have noted a couple of times is in a ratio of 3:5 and bear not PMS 280 but a RGB 0-73-144. This color is used in logos on page 6 of the 2016 NATO Visual Identity Guideline, but also in the logo in the Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014 and Secretary General’s Annual Report 2013. 475847394d347339 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will finally put this debate to rest? [9]. From NATO website: Clearly states that the color is Pantone 280 (same as in the NATO visual identification guide) and that the ratio is 4:3. And all in one place. Garuda28 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one questioned that. But what of the two flags used in 2014 and 2016? One is specifically said to be "NATO flag." 475847394d347339 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to mean much of anything. Like Oshwah said "Because other documents don't throw a perfect replica of the NATO flag in them doesn't mean that those become official... it sounds like someone just did a crappy job photoshopping a flag into a document...". Unless we have a third party source or a NATO document that explains them, then we just don't do anything at all. Garuda28 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"someone just did a crappy job photoshopping a flag into a document..." refers to the flag presently displayed in the article. However, other flags were used as well. What right do you have to note that they are illegitimate while they appear in documents? 475847394d347339 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is well sourced from the NATO website and is in full compliance with the written specifications (emphasis on written). No such written specifications exist for the proposed alternatives, meaning that any specifications appear to be original research. Until that changes my position on this will not change. Sourced information wins every time over unsourced material. Provide sourced written specifications and this will all change. Garuda28 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any NATO document is official. We can't disregard any. 475847394d347339 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The document does not discuss NATO flag specs. Provide NATO flag specs from a NATO or third party source and that changes it. Until there are new specs that doesn't have any reason change. We have written specs. My view is that those are more authoritative than an unofficial image analysis done by a user. Garuda28 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not changing anything, just noting uses. Also, there is no analysis done if we put all the flags in the same place. Also, your idea of analysis comprises the authority to compare the specifications with the flag currently displayed in the article, but not the ability to compare the specifications with the two flags in question. Of course, if we can't compare the specifications with either of them (the displayed flag versus the two flags in question), then we have to present all of them indiscriminately. 475847394d347339 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My position has not changed and I have not been convinced by this argument. It seems just like an unofficial graphical analysis as opposed to the use of official NATO specifications to form a vector image (which is permitted). I suggest that you wait for other uses to comment, unless you can provide sources to either state that there are multiple versions of the flag in use (in text) or that the specs of the flag have changed. One is clearly sourced and official, and the other has no commentary or explanation at all. Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Small flag commonwealth.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of SAARC.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pacific Islands Forum Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]