File talk:Flag of Vatican City (2001–2023).svg

[Untitled]

The Vatican flag graphic published by WikiDan61 on 11 July 2017 is wrong, as found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Vatican_City.svg. The previous version is correct (published by SiBr4 on 5 June 2015), despite exceptions in actual use at the Vatican or abroad. The following links demonstrate actual use of the official flag model in Vatican City itself. I hope they will be reviewed by an editor soon (I lack the technical expertise to perform edits), because foreign flag-makers sometimes rely on Wikipedia for their production specimens:

Vatican City Constitution, 2000, black & white rendering (see PDF p. 1062): http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-92-2000-ocr.pdf

Vatican City Constitution, 2000, official color rendering of “Annex A”: http://vatflag.tripod.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 8.24.109.103 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) http://vatflag.tripod.com/vatican-flag-constitution.PNG

Apostolic Palace, Cortile di San Damaso, May 6, 2017: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-swiss-guards-attend-a-swearing-in-ceremony-in-vatican-city-on-may-140021579.html

Residenza Paolo VI (Extraterritorial Zone), Sept. 2, 2016: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-flag-with-the-coat-of-arms-of-vatican-city-waves-in-vatican-city-117429630.html

Domus Sanctae Marthae, May 2015: https://www.instagram.com/p/BTzK6oFlJdY/

Domus Sanctae Marthae, April 16, 2016: http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/elezioni-usa/primarie2016/2016/04/16/foto/sanders_incontra_papa_vaticano_santa_marta-137755515/1/#1

Palazzo del Governatorato, March 2017: https://www.instagram.com/p/BRdtB5IDR0I/

Guardia Svizzera Pontificia, December 2012: http://www.guardiasvizzera.va/content/dam/guardiasvizzera/images/notizie2012/25122012/25.12.2012_0406.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 8.24.109.103 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting to 2015 version reason

My comment as to why I reverted the file to the 2015 version got cut off due to length:

WikiDan61: while the red lining of the tiara is indeed present on the more detailed and colorful Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City, it is not present in the offical illustration of the flag's tiara as described in Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, in "Art. 20, §1, Attachment A". "Attachment A" is found in this official Vatican pdf scan on page 1062, color scans of which can be found in this Vatican.va Holy See Press Office release from 2013 as well as this Vatican.va Secretariat State document. The keys as well being golden, as in the version I am reverting to.

–Vuccala 00:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Its possible it was changed in 2000. see the versions the Americans took to the moon in 1969.Geni (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see p. 6 Proeksad (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala, if you haven't seen this [1] it may interest you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw the Reddit and Twitter post, but wasn't aware of the Catholic News Agency article. All great news! The more that awareness of the correct flag is spread, the sooner the 'damage' that was done can be fixed. –Vuccala 00:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala Follow up: Who is to blame for wrong Vatican flags – Wikipedia? Britannica? NASA? the Vatican itself? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The colours are different depending on the websites, see: w:Flag of Vatican City#External links. Veverve (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! It seems the Vatican flag got officially updated on June 8 2023 when the new version[2] of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State (which contains the updated flag design pdf) came into force. Someone will have to update this file with a tracing of the updated coat of arms. –Vuccala (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala: yes. I have requested new flag and coat of arms versions that contain this change, for WCommons (see User talk:Goran tek-en#Vatican City flag and coat of arms). Veverve (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala: This whole controversy is rather interesting as the blazons given by the Vatican (as shown in your links) are very vague leading to different interpretations. As a result, certainly from a heraldic perspective, no one is technically wrong here. Other examples of similar Wiki errors in flags are indeed condemnable, however I disagree that this is. The English and Italian blazons make no mention of colour within the triregnum, also whilst or is traditionally yellow it isn't incorrect for it to be metallic either. The English-language version is understandably much more detailed, however much of the intricacy shown in the images is absent confirming my point. An issue, however is that the English version specifies interlaced in the rings or, however this is not show on any version I can find. This implies the handles (called rings or bows) are themselves interlaced together, which they clearly are not. The Heraldry Society offers a solution from 1952, however this again is different. The cord should be or not gules, possibly indicating the format has never been certain or has simply changed over the years.

1. English: gules, two keys in saltire or and argent, interlaced in the rings or, beneath a tiara argent, crowned or

2. Italian: Chiavi decussate sormontate del Triregno in campo rosso

3. The Coat of Arms (1952) "Gules a key or in bend above a key argent in bend sinister, both wards upwards, the bows united by a cord or, above the shield a tiara, its three crowns or, the mitre argent

Ignoring the ornaments, the version in the image to the right is closer to what is evidenced as the original, regardless of what the Vatican has currently declared. As there's so many different versions using what the Vatican currently uses would help standardise the issue, however there is evidence it was correct already, or at least a good interpretation of such. Uamaol (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Uamaol: (as the ping could imply you want my input) Thanks for reaching out, but this no longer interests me, and I have no opinion. Feel free to ping someone else interested in vexillography here if you need a reply or something. Note to others: please don't ping me about this anymore. –Vuccala (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Uamaol I agree that there seems to be a slavish fixation on "correctness" which is not outwardly shared by Church officials. Perhaps the Church would quietly sanction a parish displaying Mickey-Mouse-ears as a Papal Flag, but perhaps Catholic vexillology is more like popular piety, in that unique expressions and interpretations are welcomed and encouraged, because they can easily fall within reasonable bounds.

Again I propose that the publications who broke this news wished to stir up controversy and seize an opportunity to accuse Wikipedia of misinformation, when we're merely the conduit of reality here. Keep in mind that the "sole reliable source" they cited was a solitary priest who's made this his life's work, has an amateur website to support, and may hold strong opinions. Remarkably, the same publications have been seen to denounce and criticize the Holy See and the Roman Pontiff on many occasions, so whose side are they on really? Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)