Talk:Flag of Portugal

older entries
Given the size of the flag, the detail is abominable. Certainly the castles should be somewhat clearer and the sphere should be more spherical. --Brooklyn Nellie 06:01, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Merge Flag of portugal
Contents of this new page which duplicates this page should be merged here and Flag of portugal redirected. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ugly
Deleted: «The flag is also considered a bit ugly by most people.» For being irrelevant. We should not classify symbols as beautiful or not. And yes... I'm portuguese.--Nabla 17:11, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC) that thing of the empire (sunset etc, I've never heard in life) -though it seems a nice theory. About the Iberian theory that seems a nice way to change people's mind to adopt another flag. I prefer a white background with the shield.
 * I consider it ugly. The shield is beautiful. Angola also has an ugly flag, and it will change to a more African style of flag (it is very beautiful). We also should change to a more Portuguese flag! I think the monarchy flags are way much more beautiful and way more in the style of the Portuguese culture. But honestly, I think only in 2004 people start really adopting the current flag. Now changing it will be difficult. Doesnt the red means republic? Many people say is the blood of the french when they took the bastille. this articles seems biased and unfactual:
 * 1149 - The Venusians defeat the Martians in the Solar System War II
 * why this article is slightly biased: []
 * evolution of the flag, shield and sphere: []

we should readopt a version from these flags:  so many centuries evolving to end with green and red. And yes... I'm from the Kingdom of Northern Lusitania and we, the Condoms Northern Lusitanians, don't accept a red and green flag. We want a referendum and choose a new flag!!!-Pedro 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * condoms? Nelson Ricardo 04:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was kidding! -Pedro 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is not biased. It was me who included the Iberic Federalism mention, as José Hermano Saraiva puts it in his História Recente de Portugal and many other history scholars argue. Once again, the article states that it is just "speculated" that the red/green scheme was based on such ideals, although highly probable. --MiguelFC 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's a good reason for changing the flag, and to remove that red! red has anything to do with Portugal. Although I continue believeing it is biased, and more with your answer. BTW José Hermano Saraiva is just widely known but is not exactly the most neutral historian known in Portugal. Ask any history student. -Pedro 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
 * I also dislike the flag - and yes, I'm portuguese, and also an History student - but I don't get your issue with the red. Red is present in the Arms of Portugal since D. Afonso III (via the red border with gold castles borrowed from Castile). If anything it's the *green* that always looked completely alien. I'm not advocating a fully red flag BTW, blue and white are the main colours of course, but red and gold are the two other colours that can associated (e.g. they were many times used as the colours for the mantle when the Arms were fully represented)--Bellum sine bello 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article should mention the criticism that exists about this flag, because it goes against several flag stuff rules, like the colours (red-green don't match). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.239.233 (talk)


 * Yes, I don't know why I didn't add info about that. Thanks for remembering!  Parutakupiu  talk 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've researched a bit, the field colors mix is OK according to heraldry rules, because the stripes of a divided background are considered to be "next to each other" not "one over the other", so the rule-of-thumb "metal over color/color over metal" doesn't apply to the colors green and red on the background.  Parutakupiu  talk 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give some sources for that? I know that there are example of it but it has always been discouraged in heraldry. They are sometimes said to be "sewed" when used that way but in a more purist view they should be avoided at all costs (otherwise the "colour on colour" rule wouldn't mean much, since heraldry uses partitions extensively). Flags do not necessarily use heraldry rules though, vexicology as a different, more relaxed set of "rules". But as far as heraldry goes the usage is, if not plan wrong, at leat discouraged and absent from the usage of ancient heralds.--Bellum sine bello 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mourish"
Is that how it's actually spelled? Thanx 68.39.174.150 23:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * nope. it should be Moorish.-Pedro 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Green
I thought Green meant hope. And yes, I'm Portuguese, never heard about it being about the woods...

Just make your own fado and forget hope

Colours - Definite Explanation
When I first wrote the original article, I had mentioned that the colours of the flag - green and red - had strong masonic association, mainly with the Carbonari. This explanation was, however, relegated to the second plan, and the Estado Novo interpretation (blood + hope) was given priority.

The fact is that in spite of our political beliefs or what we want to show to foreign people, Wikipedia should be a primarily objective and neutral information source. Few historians and vexillologists have doubts about the connection of the flag's current colours to the Carbonari and Freemasons, and their Iberic Federalist ideals. In fact, red and green were the colours of St. John, the patron saint of the Carbonari. These two colours were widely used by the Carbonari during the late 19th century uprising against the monarchy, and eventually became themselves the colours of Portuguese Republicanism.

--MiguelFC 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

great article
we should have more articles like this. I didn't know what the flag of portugal looked like until now.
 * Sigh. Sic transit gloria mundi... --Bellum sine bello 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour blind-friendly
The colour blind-friendly version is in .jpg, and so appears blurry. Is it possible to make a colour blind friendly .png or .svg? --Joffeloff 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm simply going to remove that, because the user that added it didn't substantiate his reasons and when I asked him to explain them he just deleted my message on his talk page. This shows how important and truthful was his edit.

Too much information?
hmm....does an article about a flag really need this much information? in my opinion, i think it needs to be a tad shorter. Kinzukiwi-lphs 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)kinzukiwi-lphs


 * Why would you want to REMOVE factual information from an encyclopedia? Just because a flag isn't that important doesn't mean you should REMOVE information - it's not this article that needs trimming, it's the others that need filling. --Joffeloff 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was promoted to FA because it was comprehensive enough. Removing factual and encyclopedic information from it is going against the goals of Wikipedia. Anyway, I still believe more data can be added to the article.  Parutakupiu  talk 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * that's your opinion and does not fit the wikipedian standard. A flag it's important, it's a symbol of so many things, it tells us culture and history. just because you don't think like that there is no reason to remove relevant and factual information. I'm sure many people agree and that's why the article is not as short as you wanted. we don't have guilt that maybe your country flag doesn't have such a rich history like the Portuguese flag. I also belive that more data can be added. There are more relevant information that should be on the article.

Unequal bands
I think there's an important point missing here (and everywhere, actually). Why does the Portuguese flag features more red than green? That's a basic thing about the flag that ought be known and should be on the article. I've searched in several sites but none explains that. Maybe i didn't search where i should. If someone could find information about that, it would nice.

-- Bluedenim  10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The first unevenly distributed Portuguese flag was the state, civil and naval ensign from the Constitutional Monarchy (1830-1910) period, which was 1:2 (Light Blue, White); state, civil and war flag was 1:1. To my knowledge, that was for one reason only: being permanently flown while cruising, and due to strong sea wind, ensigns tend to be ripped little by little on the fly end, shortening it; if the fly is larger in the first place, it can be ripped while not becoming in-aesthetically short. Somehow, the uneven distribution (which was not used on land) was deemed more aesthetically appealing by the Republican flag, and it was adopted (though on a 2:3 distribution) in all the designs except the war flag (which is not usually flown, but only carried on military parades). Gazilion (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard an account from an elder person (unfortunately I've got no evidence for the truth or lack thereof of this account) saying the bands were initially supposed to be equal, but when the flag had to be put on a pole, part of the green band was rolled on it for the flag to be securely held (they had not foreseen this issue beforehand) and thereafter the unevenness was kept onwards. Luckylemming (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Medieval civil flag and ensign? Medieval flags were not for civil usage
The Medieval flags displayed here show the indication that they were used in all 6 situations vexillologists recognize: state, civil and war flag (on land); state, civil and naval ensign (at sea). However, those Medieval flags were not national flags, as they didn't represent the country itself; they were personal flags of the King, only representing him, an army under his rule, and maybe other official enforcing his authority (tax collector and such). That means that those flags were never used as civil flag or ensign; that concept (that right) is much more recent. Gazilion (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  11:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling consistency
I suggested a while ago that, this article, as a featured article, should use one variety of English spelling, per WP:ENGVAR. As I noted there, it seemed to be mostly some form of English/European/Australian (it was "colour" in the lead, and nearly always "colour" on this talk page). I have bitten the bullet, and implemented that. I briefly checked the article's history and could not see consistency in anyone else's edits for spelling consistency before (even user Parutakupiu's excellent edits seem to use both at different times), but if someone would really much rather we settled on en-US then I would have no objection: but I think there should be consistency. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help with that, RobertG. As a non-native English speaker, I sometimes change from one variant to the other without noticing. Thanks again. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pantone-colored version?
I'm thinking there should be a Pantone-colored version of this flag like there is for Australia and Switzerland each. I don't like how bright the colors are on the regular version. --Kanjilearner358 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Portugal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107074304/http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/ to http://www.igespar.pt/en/patrimonio/mundial/portugal/110/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Portugal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225123056/http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/historia/hist001.htm to http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/historia/hist001.htm
 * Added tag to http://criarmundos.do.sapo.pt/Portugal/simbolosbandeira.html
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20070210091724/http%3A//lendasdeportugal.no.sapo.pt/distritos/beja.htm to http://lendasdeportugal.no.sapo.pt/distritos/beja.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406230032/http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1833/chronology1826.htm to http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1833/chronology1826.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205181353/http://www.ancruzeiros.pt/ancdistintivos.html to http://www.ancruzeiros.pt/ancdistintivos.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Portugal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171224213851/http://5outubro.centenariorepublica.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=98 to http://5outubro.centenariorepublica.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=98

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

colors
These are the colors - takeb from the original document https://imprensanacional.pt/bandeira-nacional-objetos-com-historia/ https://i.ibb.co/TDXwz6g/verm.jpg https://i.ibb.co/Dknbq2q/verde-da-bandeira.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.214.144 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
This older FA has significant amounts of uncited text, which does not meet the current FA standards. If the problems are not addressed, a featured article review may be necessary. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Visa
I need a vist visa your country 0axam (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)