Talk:Flag of Vatican City

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

In heraldry, yellow and white usually represent the two metals, gold and silver, which are not placed side by side. Special exception is made in this case because they also represent the keys of Saint Peter.

Not at all; there's nothing wrong with dividing the field between two colours or two metals (in this case per pale Or and argent.). It's frequently done. The problem arises when you place a charge on a field, when both are of a metal or a colour (as in the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Argent, a cross potent between four crosslets Or.) Presumably the device with the keys and mitre is blazoned proper to avoid problems. - Montréalais 07:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed the bit about the red cord -- ascribing non-existent symbolism to mere decorative elements is ridiculous. It's safe to say that the red cord represents a red cord holding the keys together -- like a keychain.

A solid refutation of the notion that the rule doesn't apply to divisions of the field (but only to charges on a field) is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach in which the the tricolor was changed (top to bottom) from black-green-yellow (color-color-metal) to black-yellow-green (color-metal-color) to comply with the rule. This fact is cited in Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry). Of course violations of the rule aren't non-existent, but "It's frequently done" is false. That's why the violators (Papacy, Jerusalem) stand out as exceptions, and give the impression that "holy" entities are exempt (which is an impression that is formed, perhaps, only by what may be two accidents).
.
A lot of "violations" may result from quartering, impaling, or dimidiating arms that did not contain violations before such marshaling. An example is the arms of Cinque Ports, formed by dimidiating two coats (England (three gold lions on red) with another coat (three gold ships on blue)) each of which didn't violate the rule on its own. Nothing was done to resolve the resulting "violation" because such a measure would have prevented the formation of three composite golden monsters (front end of golden lion attached to back end of golden ship) resulting from the dimidiation of the charges. The fact that so many quartered arms of two color fields or two metal fields have a cross added "over all" (of a metal if the two coats of arms' fields are two colors, or of a color if the two coats of arms' fields are two metals) reinforces my impression that many heraldic authorities sought to obey the rule not only for charges but also for divisions of the field. I'm not going to go searching now for quartered shields of two metals or two colors that have (respectively) a color cross or a metal cross over all added to obey the rule, but the person who typed "It's frequently done" didn't supply any actual examples either, so I'm not gonna be held to a different standard. The flag of Jamaica is an example of a saltire positioned to obey the rule.
.
I can't think of any example OTHER than the Vatican that has a metal-metal partition of the field. Or, for that matter, color-color, although I'll bet those are more common. If a shield is striped with an odd number of alternating stripes, the stripes of number one fewer than the other set are deemed to be charges "on" the background (the set of stripes that is one more in number than the other set) and thus obey the rule as it applies to charges on fields. But if a shield is striped with an even number of alternating stripes, neither set of stripes is considered a charge on the other, and neither is considered the background. It is thus, arguably, a partition of the field, and I can't think of a case where the two tinctures for the two equal-numbered sets of stripes is color-color or metal-metal.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

not a square![edit]

The flag of Vatican City is not a square! In an official letter of the Apostolic Nunciature to Germany to the German Federal Ministry of the Interior on 27 May 2010, it is noted that the Vatican flag is not square but rectangular - other depictions would be incorrect.[1][2] In the Vatican constitution also a rectangular flag is displayed. Please change this false information. Greetings --91.7.50.108 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Vatican City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of Tincture violation[edit]

The text claims that the placement of Or (gold) and Argent (white) side by side causes a violation of the Rule of Tinctures. There are two sources shown. Both sources say that it's not Or and Argent side by side, but the keys drawn onto the panels that cause the violation, as they too are Or and Argent.

Is this something that should be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.127.217 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my Comment above. In short, yes, it breaks the rule (because the rule DOES apply to partitions of fields, not just charges ON fields, and, with the arms of the Kingdom Of Jerusalem, it stands out for breaking the rule, forming a vague uncodified impression that institutions of the highest holy prestige are exempt from the rule.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

It is square, by law[edit]

The Fundamental Law of Vatican City State says that The flag of Vatican City State is constituted by two fields divided vertically, a yellow one next to the staff and a white one, and bears in the latter the tiara with the keys, all according to the model which forms attachment A of the present Law. Attachment A indeed shows a square flag. Eccekevin (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the version of the flag used as an infantry colour. Square, yes, but also complete with finial and so on. Noone thinks that they are an essential part of the flag, just because they're in Attachment A, so why treat the proportions of the flag differently. It's pretty normal for flags to be used in more than one proportion, even when when the shape is explicitly specified. In general, I certainly wouldn't interpret a model flag in a legal definition as fixing the overall proportions of the flag, and in this case it's apparent that the Vatican themselves don't interpret it that way. JPD (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Vatican does not want to release the clear dimensions of its flags using proportions (it would take them three characters to write "X:X") or precise measures, I do not think we should bother trying to make tea leaf readings and wild assumptions by extrapolating from the images they use. They had the chance to do just that when the 1929 Fundamental Law and the 2000 Fundamental Law were made, and they have had this chance again very recently when the new 2023 Fundamental Law was made (it enters into force the 7 June); but in all three cases, the Vatican did not take this chance. Veverve (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a couple links, since I feel like it would be helpful to future users to link the updated Fundamental Law: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/motu_proprio/documents/20230513-legge-fond-scv.html. The flag is linked in Allegato A. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost section about this[edit]

For the records, see here, section "Who is to blame for wrong Vatican flags – Wikipedia? Britannica? NASA? the Vatican itself?". Veverve (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican flag varient[edit]

File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg is still used and follows the rules it is listed on the Vatican City website and is still flown https://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/sp_ss_scv_stemma-bandiera-sigillo_en.html Skunkcrew (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It simply means the Vatican website has not been updated. Furthermore, it is not marked as a variant at this URL but as the official flag, which is false since a new flag version is now in place. Veverve (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version still used the design elements are the same but in a different artistic representation. I think their should be a section of previous regulated versions instead of completely erasing a design variant that would still be used in some capacity. Skunkcrew (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a variant. This is an older official flag, so it cannot be considered a "variant". The rest you say is WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so?
they share the same design Skunkcrew (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are the same, then why do you want to keep them both? If they are the same, this would be redundant. Veverve (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you say this is a new flag but in the adopted section it says 7 June 1929 wich according to you isnt true because you say that they have a new flag Skunkcrew (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new constitution came into force in June 2023. Veverve (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes but the flag is mostly the same if you say its a flag then change the date of wich it says its adopted Skunkcrew (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you say its a flag then change the date of wich it says its adopted: but I already did, the caption says "Flag of Vatican City, 2023 version". Veverve (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you didnt it still says 7 June 1929 but you added what you claim under the flag Skunkcrew (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skunkcrew: please revert your latest edition; otherwise I will ask for an admin intervention against you, as I had already warned you. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the caption i put was version according to regulations prior to 2020 now thats not true? Skunkcrew (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
correction 2023 Skunkcrew (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skunkcrew: this is my last request: I ask you to remove what you have added. This infobox should only contain one flag. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok but i think their should be another box containing the other version Skunkcrew (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I added is not false
The seccond flag is accorded to previous revisions before 2023 Skunkcrew (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why you cant have a extra image with the previous regulated version Skunkcrew (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version is aleady present in other images throughout the article. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote typo?[edit]

Is it possible that the Footnote that is numbered "6" as of the date I'm typing this should say "letter FROM the German nunciature" instead of "letter TO the German nunciature"? It's on the letterhead of the Vatican embassy or ambassador ("NUNTIATUR") to Germany in Berlin.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. Veverve (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Vatican_City&oldid=1207243898"