File talk:National Emblem of the Republic of China.svg

To user Shibo, Please discuss on talk page before you upload the near black version of the Kuomintang Emblem. Please. Arilang ^talk 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shade

The blue shade of the emblem should be in consistent with the shade of the flag but User:Fry1989 reverted it. I am going to correct it if no objection.--Lmmnhn (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I object. The shade of blue has been fought over dozens of times and this sort of thing should not be altered until a thorough consensus is formed. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Would not it be common sense that the shades of the emblem and flag should be consistent though?--Lmmnhn (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but considering how many times this issue regarding the proper shade of blue has come up, I feel everything should be left alone until there is one hell of a solid consensus which can be applied to all files. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I say there is a consensus if not solid over there on the File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg#Colors_used_by_government_websites already? So we can follow conclusion there?--Lmmnhn (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a citizen of the Republic of China. I'm sure the color of our National Emblem is the same with National Flag. Please correct it. 我是中華民國國民，我確定國徽的顏色與國旗相同，請修正圖檔。--Jitcji (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a photo. (This one looks darker because lamp color and brightness) 請看相片（受燈光和亮度的影響，當中的國徽看起來比原貌深了些）。--Jitcji (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think photo is a good reference as it is mostly affected by the lighting. An official emblem on government official website would be a better source. As I mentioned above, File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg#Colors_used_by_government_websites, someone just did a great reserach on the shades of the flag on the government websites. Please see which one you think fit the best. IMO I think the current shade of the flag is satisfying though.--Lmmnhn (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As was explained on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the shade of blue that this file has used since May 2012 by Sekisama was sourced to the ROC Government (http://flag.moi.gov.tw/FAQ.html *dead link*). Where disputes arise, sources are considered the ultimate voice. The argument by Jitcji that he is a citizen of the ROC and therefore has "seen it many times" and knows better is insufficient to override such a source. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's ONLY a recommendation

Dear Fry1989, the website (http://flag.moi.gov.tw/FAQ.html) is not a dead link. Maybe you can explore it via a proxy. I think you need literal translation for the website.

Ｑ：國旗的顏色有規定嗎?
Ａ：有關我國國徽國旗之制式及使用，係依中華民國國徽國旗法規定辦理，按該法第4條規定，中華民國國旗依憲法規定為紅地左上角青天白日。我國目前尚未規範國旗配色標準，惟繪製國徽國旗時仍應力求顏色之純正。
※以下國旗用色僅提供參考
青：C100 + M80 +20%BK（黑）
白：正白色
紅：Y100 + M100+ 5%~10%BK（黑）

I literally translated this in English as:

Q: Is there any statutory definition for the national flag?
A: Regarding the designs and uses of the national flag, National Emblem and National Flag of the Republic of China Act is followed, according to Article 4 of the Act and Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the National Flag of ROC is a wholly red flag with a 'blue sky and white sun' on the upper left canton. The authorities have not yet instituted the specification of the colors on the national flag, nevertheless, the colors of the national flag and national emblem should achieve 'purity' when drawn.
matters need attention: the colors hereinafter are only recommendation.
Blue: C100 + M80 +20%BK (Black)
Withe: Pure White
Red: Y100 + M100+ 5%~10%BK (Black)

Actually, if you read File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg#Colors_used_by_government_websites, you would realize that there IS NOT any official standard of the colors on the national flag. Moreover, different websites of ROC Government show different colors. Thus, the users voted for the colors in File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg#Colors used by government websites and build a consensus finally.
Since there is not a statutory standard, but is a consensus in Wiki already, I suggest you accept the outcome of File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg. We use these colors not because we are the citizens of the ROC and therefore have "seen it many times."--Akira123 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An official "recommendation" still holds more value and weight than mere opinion. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

According to your opinion, how about those colors used by the other departments of ROC Government? Especially by Office of the President? It's the highest ROC Government, and why don't you follow it but a lower ministry?--Akira123 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to your link, but this is the first you've shown it to me. Before now, neither yourself or Jitcji provided a source. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Although neither I or Jitcji directly provided any source, for example, Office of the President, to you, we told you there are a thread of discussion in File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg many times. And this website is cited there too. Since you don't object to the colors recommended by Office of the President, could you tell me how to decide shade of blue according to at least 2 "recommendations"? I suggest to followed outcome of File_talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg, because they already spent a lot of time to reach a agreement to the same problem we are trying to resolve now.--Akira123 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there's been previous discussions. What matters is I had a source at hand and the two of you were edit warring against it. You're making it clear I can't discuss this with you in a rational manner, you have attacked me on several pages in several languages. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fry1989, I guess there is some misunderstanding among us. I believe that all we are enthusiastic about flags and coats. That is, all we pay much attention to any change of these files. If you felt bad or attacked by me before, I feel sorry to you. Besides, we still have to reach a agreement since there are two sources you don't object to, don't we?--Akira123 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Akira123 -- There's more than one possible CMYK-to-RGB conversion, so having exact CMYK colors wouldn't necessarily precisely specify the RGB colors... AnonMoos (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite honestly I find this obsession with conversions obnoxious. If there is an image, copy and paste it and there ya go. It really is that simple except for those who overthink the matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever -- if you want to do things right, then color science is a rather involved and mathematical field of study, including things such as CIELab etc. etc. What's immediately relevant for SVG flag/emblem image makers, is that colors of flags or emblems are usually specified in a device independent color system, while RGB colors used in SVG files are in a device dependent color system. There's no one correct conversion between device independent and device dependent colors... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever yourself! People like you make it 10 times harder than is needs to be. Naturally we can't take a photograph and copy it's colours, but if there is a digital image, than copying it really is that simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but color JPEGs are internally encoded in the YCbCr color system, and converting from YCbCr to RGB is by no means without potential pitfalls. Anyway, it's far from automatic that a flag or emblem image found on an official government website fully conforms to all official color specifications (assuming that such specifications exist)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Be sorry all you want, I am not. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That may have something to do with why you so frequently find yourself at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, eh? -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Color of Blue Shade

Nowadays, this file is protected because of the argument about color of the blue shade. According to an admin's reply, we have to discuss and reach an agreement for the color. Since there is not any statutory definition for it and there are several sources from different official website mentioned above, people on Commons built a consensus here. I suggest that the color of the national emblem should be identical to the national flag. That is, the blue shade of the emblem should follow the flag. --Akira123 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. National Emblem originated from National Flag. The blue shade of it should follow National Flag.--Jitcji (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this file is protected is because the two of you wouldn't stop edit warring without sources! The flag matches neither Sekisama's source or the one posted above by Akira123 two days ago, and I will always oppose the shade of blue on the flag for those reasons. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the blue shade of the flag does not match with the recommendation from the official website and the shade in the presidential website, if you read the comment I left on the talk page over there, however unfortunately it is the Consensus built among the wiki users and it would take a lot of time to overturn it. Before that I think we should respect the decision of the Consensus they have reached. However, i do not know the current shade of emblem has if there is any source or consensus to support the legitimacy itself, but it does not match with the current shade of the flag (#003686) which supported by the Consensus of the wiki users (#000095) nor the shade recommended by the government website (#023e88). The closest shade it can compare to would be the one used in the presidential website (#013686) however to follow strictly to that version would mean to change it too. Therefore we should agree with that the current shade should be changed first. Secondly, can't we build a consensus that the shade of the emblem and the flag should be in consistent? If we want to overturn the Consensus of the shade of the flag and the emblem then we can should raise another discussion on the talk page of the flag to change the shade of both the flag and the shade, but before a decision could be made over there I strongly recommend to follow the shade of the flag to show conformity. So can we have a vote on this?--Lmmnhn (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Consistency does not override accuracy. The blue on the flag is not accurate or sourced. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is inaccurate then you should raise your objection over the talk page of the flag. I did it but no one was supporting me. Shouldn't we raise another discussion over there instead of wasting time here which probably would not lead to anywhere?--Lmmnhn (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no point it going over there where there are two colours in dispute and nobody interested in listening, when we have a chance here to get the blue straightened out by itself. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is nonsensical. How do you know nobody is interested in listening? There was only me who really tried to raise a discussion. And now we have at least three users discussing the same shade of the flag and shade and you are claiming no one is interested? On the one hand you say the accuracy overrides the consensus but on the other hand when you think that the same shade of the flag is not inaccurate you just refused to have a discussion over the same issue in a different place. The shade of the emblem cannot straighten out by itself as the whole discussion here is to find a conformity between the flag and the consensus. Sorry I have been reasonable but I do not think we can build a consensus with your nonsense.--Lmmnhn (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lmmnhn, I agree with your opinion: to reach agreement to change the current shade of this file and the shade of the emblem and the flag should be in consistent. In fact, on the talk page of the flag, we can find that when they built a consensus in 2009, they decided not only the shade of the national flag but also all the related ones. It's ridiculous to make a country's national flag and national emblem inconsistent color while they are designed obviously related.--Akira123 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consistency does not override accuracy, but what is accuracy? Because there is not "accuracy", people built a consensus of the color on Commons. In other words, if there is an official consistent color, the wiki users didn't have to discuss and vote on the talk page of the flag. It's improper to replace a consensus with individual sense before you can gather much enough people to support "accuracy" you preferred since there are at least 2 "accuracies." By the way, before the former consensus is overturned, the shade of the emblem and the flag should be in consistent. --Akira123 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Accuracy" is that which the Government or other relevant authority says is correct, whether officially or in a consultive manner. That much should be obvious. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In a democratic environment, what authority says is not absolutely correct. You also recognize this point; otherwise, you wouldn't ask Lmmnhn to "discuss first" and Jitcji "a consensus." Moreover, if what a Government says without statutory enforcement is what Commons to obey, you could already easily have overturned the Consensus on the talk page of the flag by request the admins to change the colors according to the official website. That is, you also realize clearly that the users agreement here override a recommendation, without enforcement, from an official website.--Akira123 (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What delightful nonsense, "in a democratic environment, what the relevant authority says doesn't matter!". So is that we we are strictly following the shade on the flags of Singapore that their government says it should be? Or what about Serbia's flag? This place is littered with examples of us following what the government says it's flag is, not what people think it should be. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What delightful nonsense is what your interpretation. There is a relevant Act to define what the national flag and emblem should be. According to the website you stress on, the authority doesn't determine specified color codes. That is, it's OK for people to think what the flag and emblem should be with following what the Act (not Government) says, no matter what red is red, what blue is blue, and what white is white. By the way, you emphasized "consensus" but not "authority says" many times at beginning. Please tell us what it means since you are convinced that the website superior to a consensus among the wiki users, and moreover, why don't you request the admins to change the color of the flag and the emblem according to the website directly?--Akira123 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already made it very clear: A Government has more right to a say about their symbol and what it is supposed to be than a bunch of users on Commons and what they think it should be. We've already followed this rule on several other files, I've given you two examples. Singapore's Government says their flag is supposed to be Pantone 032, and that is why we are using that shade of red on that flag even though there are several users (including myself) who disagree and think it should be different. This issue is no different. If the ROC did not have any sources on their symbols, it would be, but since they do have sources on what their symbols are supposed to be, we have to follow it. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't explain why you asked the users "to discuss" and "a consensus" first instead of introducing the Government website yet, while you already knew the "source." It's no way for you to deny or ignore what you did here. And you should convince us that your "insist" won't change again in the future because it changed from "consensus" to "Government says" after we told you there was already a consensus you disagree with.--Akira123 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have no reason to explain either! The source was provided a year ago and the two of you kept trying to go against it. It is YOU who needs to explain why the file needs to be changed against a source that has been accepted for 9 months. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In case of Singapore's flag, Pantone 032 is "the official colour" described on all the authorities websites. So, we can clearly realize it's not "a recommendation" but determination and any discussion is useless. But in all the ROC government websites, there is not such a determined color, especially while "recommendation" is highlighted. It's why we have to reach a consensus.--Akira123 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to deligitimize the source from the ROC by constantly calling it "only a recommendation" will get you nowhere. It still carries more weight then your opinion. As I said, i have nothing to explain and nothing to say other than the fact that it is YOU who wants the change and therefore YOU who must explain why it should be changed. NOT me explaining why it should stay the way it is. You have it backwards. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the source just stood only for seven months (May 2013 to Dec. 2013). You should request the admins to recover all the record, and you will find the bright blue stood much longer and earlier than you prefer one. If how long or early the color stands does matter, you should accept bright blue shade.--Akira123 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Only a recommendation" is said and highlighted by the ROC official website. If what a Government says is what you must obey, why do you argue with it?--Akira123 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are incapable of understanding the fact that any Government source, whether it's a statutory document or a recommendation, holds more weight on Commons than any of our mere opinions on a matter, then I will not continue to try and explain it to you because it's your own foolishness and arrogance that you think you can somehow deligitimize a valid source. You're beating a dead horse, and so am I by trying to get it in your head that you are mistaken when you have no interest in the truth. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem is that there is not ONLY ONE Government source for the ROC's flag and emblem. And you don't answer yet which one should be applied on Wiki among more than ten truths, facts, accuracies, etc. You must understand that it's impossible to make use of all the sources when we drawn the flag and the emblem here.--Akira123 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I understand that two different things can not exist at the same time, that we have to pick one and that there are several "recommendations". However, every one of them is more valid then the blue that is being used on the flag and which yourself and Jitcji think should be on this file as a matter of consistency, and for that reason I can not accept #000095. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do think that consistency does matter, but I don't think #000095 is unchangeable. My opinion is more similar to Lmmnhn. Before we can build a new consensus for the shade by picking up a color code from the official sources, why can't we follow the built agreement first? I think it's more improper to make inconsistent than to follow a consensus very closed to one of the recommendations.--Akira123 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Because as I've already told you, the flag has two colours that are in dispute, both the red and blue are not completely supported. It makes more sense to discuss the file with only one colour, than to deal with the other where we have to figure out two colours. Take it one thing at a time. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's easier to deal with the colors of the flag. We can choose the red and blue made use of by the most government websites and someone just did a great research on the talk page of the flag. It's not a problem at all.--Akira123 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is easier and much more likely to succeed if you take things one at a time. It doesn't matter whether you debate it on this file or the flag, the new blue (if one is chosen) has to be applied to all the files any way, at least if you debate it here you are only dealing with one thing at a time. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The shade is ONLY ONE thing whether how many flags and emblems related it, since there are sources only for the flag and we must picking up one blue from them. IMO we can take #000094, which was made use by four government websites mentioned one the talk page of flag, to replace #000095, even if you want to exclude the flag first. How about your selection?--Akira123 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

CMYK conversion

Please note the CMYK of C100-M80-Y0-K20 is #0029CC in web colors. Sekisama's version is using #003686, that is C100-M60-Y0-K47 in CMYK. --Ericmetro (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sekisama's version has a source, none of the other colours are consistently sourced. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems Sekisama's version doesn't follow the CMYK source properly. As the source suggests C100-M80-Y0-K20, it would be like #0029CC if converted to RGB web color.--Ericmetro (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The conversion is irrelevant, it's an unnecessary procedure that complicates the process. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)