Talk:International maritime signal flags/Archive 1

Untitled

 * Nautical Signal Flags
 * de:Flaggenalphabet
 * en:International maritime signal flags
 * es:Banderas de señales
 * ru:Сигнальные флаги
 * it:Codice Internazionale Nautico

Any Questions? I think german version would be the best solution, because it has clear lines.

--Saperaud 18:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at these SVGs: commons:Category:Nautical Signal Flags. The German article already uses them.
 * Sorry, but I've already trumped that series with my own expanded set of signal flag SVG's, at commons:Category:International Code of Signals. --  Denelson83  02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it very odd that you have removed the old flags and replaced them with your own, simply to "trump" them (and increase your own wiki coverage?). If you had examined the link that was in the article, you would have found SVG graphics that are released under the Creative Commons license. This would have saved you time in creating your own flags (except the ones I have not made, half of which would simply have required a bucket fill on my existing templates!) and would probably have given you time to add value to another article.

I am not too fussed about the link to my site (thanks to whoever added it before, it was appreciated) or even that you've made your own, but duplicated effort seems pointless when somebody else has already taken their own time and given permission for them to be used freely.

If you'd like to contact me via email, you can find the address on my website, which was linked in previous versions.

edeca

Request for definitions
Can someone explain what all the flags at the bottom mean?

Mike Schiraldi 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Prompt Flag
Does anyone have a reference for the "Prompt" flag? I've never seen it, and I've checked two references and not found it. Jablomih 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

– According to the International Code of Signals, the code and answering pennant should be in the place of the 'prompt' flag, which I too have never seen. Additionally, I've never seen the fourth substitute flag, although I can conceive of situations in which it could be used. Gigacannon 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Should prompt be deleted then? The fourth substitute is a U.S. Navy and/or NATO flag; it's not in the ICS. Jablomih 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a Navy signalman and I have never heard of a "prompt" flag. Code/ANS can be used to acknowledge a hoist (rather than repeating it). Is that what "prompt" is for? Uriel 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Prompt flag deleted. --Jablomih (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, here's the source I used for the prompt flag. And no, it doesn't explain how it's supposed to be used, so it can stay gone. --  Denelson83  11:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag borders
I uploaded all of these flag images with borders, and now some of them have had the borders removed. Either all of the flags have borders, or none have them. --  Denelson83  19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The flags with a lot of white (such as H and S) are very unclear without borders. Perhaps a better solution would be to use a background color, such as light gray. I can't figure out how to do this with the &lt;gallery&gt; tag. The German de:Flaggenalphabet page uses a simple table to display the flags, so a background color can be applied to individual table cells, and it looks much better.--RadioTheodric (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are issues with all of the versions of the ICS flags that various folks have done. In addition to how to do borders, there are also matters of color, proportion, and naming (and even some details of design) that are inconsistent.  Lamentably so, as it rather shows us up to be a bunch  of amateurs.  So I ask: would everyone be interested in working up how to do a first-rate set of ICS flag images?
 * - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

NATO Usage
I added a (tiny) expanded section on NATO usage of INTERCO flags. It is fairly small, but by rights it shouldn't have been marked as a "minor" edit (why Wikipedia does this by default I have no idea). Oops. Uriel 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't make it by default. Help:Minor_edit. Peachey88 (Talk Page 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the several sections on the NATO flags to the article on Naval flag signalling. -J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

External links to spam pages
I have removed the external link to the Plymouth Gin ceramics plate page for a second time (first time by User:Peachey88). The page (link) does not add to the knowledge of maritime signal flags but does attempt to sell plates with maritime flags on them with non-standard meanings for each flag (mainly aimed at Gin or drinking Gin). I'm all for a drink (or more) but the link doesn't belong here. Please discuss reasons to have it added to the article here with others before adding it back in. HeadSnap (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

History of this system?
Would someone add a bit of history to the intro of this article, e.g. Who devised this system of flags? Where and when did the designs originate? Is there any logic at all to the sequence, or are they simply random? Which organization was responsible for approving the change from the historical number flags to the modern ones and when? When were the flag shapes standardized? Etc. Charvex (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on on the International Code of Signals has some of the history. The ICS was built on successive developments, of which some of the details can be found in various places.  E.g., in earliar versions there was a mixture of flags (properly, the rectangular shapes) and pennants (the tapered or triangular shapes) for letters and numerals.  This was deemed confusing, so the pennants were moved out and now are only numerals or substitute/code flags.  Also, in an early version the vowels were left out to  avoid any chance of forming, in any language, "indelicate" words.  It's because of this kind of stuff I think this article could be wonderfully developed.  (See my proposal, below).  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A small amount of history can now be found in the new article Maritime flag signalling. Follow the links for more. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Romeo, romeo...
Since when has ROMEO had a single letter meaning? Forgive me if one has been snuck in when I wasn't looking, but last time a read a copy of the International Code of Signals, Romeo definitely didn't have a single letter meaning. 94.197.213.106 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I've takem it out. Canthusus (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I've taken out that very bit before — but it keeps slipping back in? We could make a stronger statement somewhere that naval usages should go somewhere else. But I am reluctant to invest much time into this article. And it may be useful in keeping the flies off of the related articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"International maritime signal flags"?
I have been making some fairly minor adjustments and clarifications. However, there is one point I am reticent to jump on, as it goes to the heart of the article: strictly speaking, there really is no "International maritime signal flags" as such. I believe the subject as originally intended is the signal flags (implicitly maritime) of the International Code of Signals (ICS) (which is a separate article). (More particularly, this would be the "International flags and pennants" of the ICS; see the chart in the article.) In that regard there are two significant problems with this article: 1) it largely overlaps the ICS article, and 2) the "Allied" (actually U.S. Navy and NATO) flags are not ICS.

I would like to propose a different approach: "Maritime signal flags". In modern usage, and outside of various naval usages, this is largely the ICS. But there was considerably historical development, including the flag systems of Maryatt and Popham, and apparently some significant developments with the French. This would take some research, but could be an excellent article, and could show how various developments lead to the ICS. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created a new article, Maritime flag signalling, which I think will serve the purpose of the current article. Could still use an article on naval flag signalling (which I don't particularly want to do). J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did do a minimal article on naval flag signalling, but I do consider it a minimal stub. Anyone that is interested, please jump in and expand it. There is much potential. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We now have:


 * International maritime signal flags
 * International Code of Signals
 * Maritime flag signalling
 * Flag signals
 * Flaghoist signalling
 * Flag semaphore
 * Substitute flag
 * International maritime signal flags
 * Naval flag signalling


 * Surely we can group some of these togetehr and improve them in terms of readability and context? "Naval" and "maritime" are the same thing but different code table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re accuracy.
I would to mention several items which, though they may seem just small nits, do go to the accuracy and even professionalism of Wikipedia.

First, the flag names (phonetic alphabet) just added are not merely "nautical". They are established in a formal standard (see International Code of Signals), and that is the authoritative source to which we should refer.

Second, the correct spellings are "Alfa" and "Xray" (not Alpha and x-ray). These are fairly wide-spread errors, but they are still errors. See the standard.

Third, and as I have mentioned in the prior section, this article itself is rather incorrect. I have created three other articles (International Code of Signals, Maritime flag signalling, and Naval flag signalling), which I believe better cover the general subject. There are some parts of this article that could be moved to the Naval flag signalling article, but after that I suggest that this article should be taken down. For this reason I think we should not be doing any work on this article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal material.
I am reluctant to do any editing on this page, believing it should be phased out in favor of the other pages mentioned above. But as long as this page is up it should be maintained, so I have removed some anecdotal material about the Zulu flag that went beyond the "ICS meaning".

I would like to point out that I am not against anecdotal material if it contributes an the article by illustrating some point or making it more interesting (and provided it is presented properly, including citation). But it seems there is a tendency to throw in any factoid we happen to know about a topic just because we know it, without consideration of how it might contribute to the article. Which then increases the level of distracting clutter, and weakens the integrity and cogency of the article. In this case the anecdotal material, although not uninteresting, was not in the scope of "ICS meaning". If anyone really wants to include this material I would suggest a new section, something along the line of "Notable uses" or some such, and then include a selection of such notable uses. (Search some of the other flag websites for examples.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Alfa.
To the various folks who keep "fixing" things that you "know": you really ought to look before you leap. E.g., please do not make changes just on what you think is correct, but take a look at the source. If you do not trust this chart, download the official U.S. version of the ICS and look at it.

It really is Alfa. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Numeric flags
[Comment moved into new section. -JJ]

Also, shouldn't numeric flags be included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordensong (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say "yes" – and "no". Yes, because the numeric flags are just as much part of the Code as the alphabetic flags.  But also "no" because I think this article should be removed.  Its original conception was flawed, it has various deficiencies, and is (I think) well and sufficiently replaced by the articles on International Code of Signals, Naval flag signalling, and Maritime flag signalling. In brief, I think it should be abandoned rather than fixed. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate numbers and codes?
Anybody know what the last two columns are in http://hyc.org/system/files/Signal-Flags.pdf? I'm also curious about the flag labeled "CA". I've always known that as AP (Answering Pennant). Is CA some alternate meaning for that? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are U.S. Navy (and NATO) flags; see Naval flag signalling. CA is "Code Answering", meaning the flaghoist is ICS.  I think that image is from John Savard's page (see external references), look around there for more info. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Images
Trappist the monk Rama: I appreciate that you want to add some images, and that you seem to have images to add. But though I personally liked the image you just added, I am going to delete it, because it doesn't really show the flag described. Also, the use of absentee pennants is really military practice, not maritime, so inappropriate for this article.

None the less, if you have other images, or opportunity to take images, perhaps you might have something more suitable? Is this something you might like to work on? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The image was added by Editor Rama.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I stand corrected. Rama? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I actually noticed the third substitute hoisted on the frigate by chance, while uploading the files. I though that it would be a funny thing to show, but in retrospect, you are quite right that it does not belong here, since the international code is one precise thing and these practices are another.
 * Being mostly ashore, I have scarce occasions to see ships hoisting signals at sea, but if that happens I will definitely have this article in mind; I'd also seize the opportunity to have the labels reviewed here before making silly mistakes like this one.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ships do fly signal flags in port; be alert for opportunities! Like flying the Bravo flag while refueling.  Casually taken photographs often fail in several respects (like failing to close up tight on the subject), but if you can find some good shots, that would be great. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Navy?
Tom: regarding your new addition, "Additional Meanings for U.S. Navy". Certainly you realize that all of these flags, not just Romeo and Bravo, have additional meanings in naval usage? So why should just these two be featured? Also, this article is about maritime usage, which is usually considered non-naval.

I think your addition here is quite out of place (as well as incomplete). But as you seem to know something on the topic of naval flag signals, and a fuller treatment might be of interest, would you be interested in working up a fuller treatment at Naval flag signalling? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to Flag Presentation
I would like to make some revisions to the flag files as well as their presentation on this page. Because these changes will be significant, I'm raising the issue first on this Talk page before modifying the actual file.

First, as some of the flags have borders and some (even those with significant white areas) do not, I propose removing the borders in all cases. This is consistent with flag depictions generally in Wikipedia, as evidenced by the flags below (just to give a small example to illustrate my point):

I was unable to find any examples in Wikipedia of flags that include borders. While I don't doubt that some examples exist, it is clear that the preferred design in Wikipedia omits the border around flags even when that lack of a border makes white areas of the flag blend with the light background. This makes sense especially with these public domain images, as it creates a "pure" source that can be used in a variety of situations.

Second, I would like to modify the presentation of the flags, removing them from the gallery and putting them in a table. This will allow the background formatting I'll mention below and will also facilitate a clearer distinction between the flags' standard meanings and their meanings when followed by numbers.

Third, I propose to add both the NATO and ICS number flags in a new section.

Fourth, in the aforementioned tables I would like to make the background of the flags a light gray to make the flag edges more obvious without their borders. I think this has been done to good effect on the German page, and I'd like to reproduce it here.

Following are tables illustrating these suggested changes. Please comment here if you see any problem with this proposal. Absent any complaint, I'll make these updates in a couple of weeks.


 * This discussion continues below at . ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

One Column

 * Notes

Two Columns



 * Notes

Number Flags
--JoeDeRose (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisions discussion
Split this off from the table, and added hard numbers to your responses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, instead just jumping in and splashing everyone!


 * A basic problem with this article is that there is no definition or criteria of "International maritime signal flags".1 There is the ICS, of course, various commercial systems precedent to that, naval flag systems, and merchant "house" flags. But this article is essentially a rather hacked list of the ICS flags and their single-flag meanings, and some miscellaneous cruft. I think it should go away, and no further work should be done on it. Otherwise we're just shining shit.2


 * Regarding flag borders, please note that "most common" usage is not necessarily "most preferred" usage. We do have a lot of slap-dash work, some of it ludicrous. (E.g., is the flag of Indonesia really just a red horizontal bar??) Borders on flags are necessary to avoid misrepresentation. Now I think you are not really meaning to remove the borders of the flags, but to use flag images that lack the borders. (Right?) Whether this is good or not depends on the usage: a background of any color used in a flag (esp. white) really should have a border; a background of any other color does not.3,4


 * Now I think your table would be a great improvement over the existing gallery. While I think any such improvements to this article are pointless (though I won't oppose it), I would invite you to revise the "Examples" section at International Code of Signals. And this table (or something close to it) would make a good appendix there.5


 * Regarding this table: the last two columns are the "single letter signals with complements", and only a subset of the ICS codes. I don't see that these are especially useful information here. If you drop them, you could make a more compact two-column table.6


 * Also, the column with the flag images should be a little wider so that the gray at the sides isn't completely squeezed out.7 I would also suggest putting the phonetic name below the letter, and dropping the parentheses. Hmmm, I wonder if you could this into three columns?8


 * I have to move on. Perhaps more comments later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson, thank you very much for this follow-up. I hope you and I can have a dialog as I'm preparing these changes, so as to get the best possible result for Wikipedia. I've added some superscripted numbers to your text so that I can provide a reply here without breaking up your comments. I still present this as a work in progress, and I'm very interested in your view of the changes I've made to this example in response to your suggestions and criticisms.


 * 1. To address this concern, I have changed the subheader from "Letter flags (with ICS meaning)" to "ICS Alphabet Flags" (This will also necessitate changing the Flag semaphore page, which links to the subheader.
 * I think "letter" flags is more accurate. And as some of these flags pre-date the ICS, or are used outside of it, it would be better to specify "ICS meaning", and particularly as single-letter meanings. Don't forget that my initial comment at 1 was that this topic is ill-defined; see my next comment.


 * 2. I saw your argument above regarding this issue. My resistance to giving up entirely on this page is (A) that it comes out at the top of the Google searches that led me to the article and (B) that other pages that might be better seem to lack some details that are found here. (Though, of course, that could be changed.) For these reasons, I favor improving this page rather than giving up on it.
 * This could be a redirect page. And Google will adapt. As to "some details": mostly what I see here is just trivia, which I would not want on the related pages. Perhaps there is some way of providing home for such trivia? At any rate, the very name of this page is imprecise, and the characterization in the lead ("It is a component of the [ICS]") is incorrect. Improvement of this page would require a rename as well as major alterations.


 * 3. I have been unable to find any guidance in the Wikipedia meta files on whether flags with white backgrounds or significant white regions should or should not have borders. As I mentioned, all of the examples I found lacked borders, and many of them are for entities with a large and active user base. This is how I came to the conclusion that not including a border is preferred. (Interestingly, even the original Taliban flag, which was just a pure white field, is presented on Wikipedia without a border.) Philosophically, I agree with this, as Wikimedia image files -- especially those that are, like these, in the public domain -- are often used for unrelated projects. For this purpose, I believe it is best to keep them in their pure form: Since the Sierra flag is not manufactured with a border, I think it should not have a border here. That said, however, I am amending my proposal based on your recommendation: While I had indeed intended to overwrite the existing Wikimedia files with borderless versions, I now realize it would be better to upload borderless alternatives under different (but similar) file names and link to those alternatives here. This would allow existing pages that use these images, but which may not have distinguishing backgrounds, to continue using them without causing confusion.
 * I believe there is no guidance. (Develop some?) But do note that broad usage does not necessarily imply preference, only herd behavior.
 * No! Do not "overwrite" any images. That could bring all sorts of retribution down upon your head. As you have realized, provide another set with different name, then editors can choose between them. Let's have a separate discussion about this.


 * 4. I also notice above that you had some concerns about color and proportion. If I create new flag files under new names in Wikimedia Commons, please let me know if any specifics needs to be changed.
 * Yes. While the ICS (and I believe other flag systems) do not specify the precise color, there is certain range used. E.g., some of the flag images available use a light blue that comes across as quite odd to anyone familiar with the actual flags. Also, many images use a square aspect ratio, which seems to be peculiar to the U.S. Navy, whereas others use a rectangular aspect. Note that the graphic from the U.S. H.O. Pub. 102 has the flags rectangular. At one time I was going to upload some rectangular images with the filenames distinguished with underscores ("ICS_Alfa"). We can talk about this in the other discussion.


 * 5. That sounds like a good plan -- but I'd like to make the changes first here and see how they are received.
 * Any images could be loaded directly to Commons. But lets do discuss first, as it might avoid rework. Regarding flags generally there are undoubtedly better places for discussion.


 * 6. I've changed the column title to "Single Letter Signals with Complements". How strongly do you feel about removing this information. Personally, I love this kind of detail when I visit a Wikipedia article. And I'm not sure there's much to be gained by removing the columns: The "ICS Meaning" column will simply expand based on the row with the longest text. And even if that doesn't fill the space horizontally, there's no text in this section to wrap around the table, meaning that we'll trade this content for white space. I'd like to keep these columns unless you think they're misleading.
 * I would not have put it in. But I'm fine with leaving it in. If you take it out then definitely you can fold the table into double columns. Note that the images require enough space vertically for three lines of text, and allowing the "meaning" text to flow out horizontally causes the table to bloat with uninformative whitespace. And expands the table such that more scrolling is needed. Better to scrunch the text a bit and fold the table. You might even try a three-column table, though that might be too scrunched.


 * 7. Excellent idea. I've modified the example as you suggest. Please let me know if you think the amount of space I've allowed is good.
 * Looks good. Very good.


 * 8. Absolutely -- but I need to understand exactly what you're suggesting in order to implement it correctly. Are you saying that "A" should be in one column and "Alfa" should be in the next. If so, should the title of that column be "Phonetic"? If this is not what you're suggesting, then putting the phonetic below the letter would be quite easy as well.
 * No, split vertically. Just as you have it now.

Thanks again. I look forward to your reply.

--JoeDeRose (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some quick hacks as I run by to illustrate what I suggested. (Feel free to revert, of course.) And I would suggest eliminating the column of how many digits. That kind of detail is well left to the source. More later, when I get a chance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I've copied your style for the letters down through Z, and also to the number flags. And I've removed the "# of Digits" column as you advise. Please let me know if you see any other items in need of revision.

--JoeDeRose (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking good. I have added "hard" numbers to your prior responses (the "#" is too flaky) and interpolated my comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the table to "Letter Flags" as you advised in #1.

I think the tables themselves are good candidates to replace current content on the page, although I still want to wait another week or so to give others a chance to chime in. (I don't anticipate we'll hear from anyone else, but it seems a good practice to wait in the context of such a substantial revision.) Let me know, of course, if you see anything else in the tables that should be changed (or make the change directly, if you prefer).

Regarding the other changes you suggest about this page and the subject matter throughout Wikipedia: I am convinced of your knowledge and I absolutely support you in cleaning up this topic -- but I am not a subject matter expert, so I shouldn't attempt to act as a champion in this arena. I came to this because I was trying to find a list of the letter and number flags, and what I found wasn't particularly well-presented on the page. I thought I could do better, so I undertook an effort to organize and format the existing information in a more readable way. I hope that I have done a good enough job that my flag tables will be used, at least for a while, on this page and perhaps others. But I think that's the extent of what I bring to the table.

From looking at the comments on this Talk page (and the lack of responses to your concerns), I don't think you'll encounter much resistance in implementing the changes you describe. To the extent that I can help, I'm glad to do so. But I think that, as the subject-matter expert, you're the one in the best position to implement the changes in this and other pages. If you've been waiting for someone to offer encouragement or approval, please know that I enthusiastically do so.

--JoeDeRose (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Though your praise nearly makes me blush! I point out that I'm really not more "expert" in this than anyone — including yourself? — would be with a study of Pub. 102, and perhaps a little looking around.


 * Your table is a definite improvement over the current gallery presentation, though I will continue urging you fold it into double columns. And regardless of what happens here I think it should be included at the ICS article. (I'd copy it over myself, but I'm hoping you'll fold it first.)


 * I haven't tried to resolve what this article should be for lack of time. But perhaps you'd like to help with this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You deserve it. I very much appreciate your assistance and guidance on this project.

I surrender on the International Code of Signals page. I've added a small notice to the bottom of the Talk page there alerting people of the proposed change, and asking them to visit this discussion if they wish to influence the revised presentation.

That opens a question about the number flags: When this is copied to the ICS page, should the NATO column be dropped or retained?

Regarding the "Numeric Complements" column: Do you wish for it to be removed entirely, or simply to be combined with the "ICS Meaning" column? If you just want to combine it, I can do that. If you want it gone ... I simply cannot bring myself to remove data. But I will not be angered or offended if you choose to remove this column on your own -- either here in the Talk page, or after it is deployed to the real page. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so please know that I recognize and respect that ethos if you choose to yank the column.

Also, several days (and paragraphs) ago I raised the issue of creating new SVG files for the flags -- originally just to deal with the inconsistency of borders, but now extended to a question about flag colors and proportions. I've done some research about this, but come up with very little in the way of solid facts. Perhaps you can help me make sense of the options.


 * I looked at Publication 102, hoping it would provide some solid guidance. But the flag images in that document (the same image that is shown on the ICS page) seem crudely drawn -- especially the wiggly diagonal lines in the Foxtrot, Mike, Oscar, and Yankee flags. I also noticed that consistency wasn't high on their agenda in the names, as they wrote "Xray" (without a hyphen) on the 2nd page, but "X-ray" (with a hyphen) on the 22nd page (these are page numbers of the PDF, not the page numbers that appear on the document).
 * Flags of the World has some content devoted to these flags -- but on the same page it says "All signal code flags are square" and (just 2 sections down the page!) offers information on proportions that are slightly rectangular.
 * The Navy page on signal flags shows square designs, but I'm suspicious of their attention to detail as well considering the inconsistencies of color. Note the deep red in Bravo as compared to the vivid red in Charlie, or the deep blue in Alfa as compared to the much lighter blue of Charlie.
 * The consistency that best matches what I think I've seen in pictures of real flags is found on flags.net. But the center stripe on its Seven and Eight flags is narrower than on the Niner flag, which is a difference I haven't noticed elsewhere. And its Zero flag has black crosses instead of blue.
 * And, of course, the Examples section of the ICS page uses a different set of flag images on Wikimedia Commons that are more rectangular

Note that if I have to create new flag images by measuring and writing SVG from scratch, the flag revisions will have to be a separate project. It's just too much to get done without creating a substantial delay in deploying the table updates.

And, finally, yes: I'll be glad to help on an ongoing basis in getting the pages in order. But you're still the subject-matter expert.


 * Joe! Don't forget to sign your messages!!


 * Yes, welcome to indefinite standards. I believe much of that is due to people being slack in their renderings. If you live near any kind of port you can most likely find ship's chandler store where you can peruse actual flags. And undoubtedly thumb a copy of the 2005 ICS. Looking at catalogs I see that the "standard" flags do come in somewhat varied proportions.


 * As to creating new flag images: well, I have done that. (Though off-hand I don't recall if I finished the numbers and substitutes.) My main reason for not uploading them was I didn't know how to do a mass upload to Commons (and didn't want to to 40 indivdual uploads.) We should talk about this some more, perhaps via e-mail.


 * As to the ICS number flags: I don't believe they have single-flag meanings, and they're already illustrated in the image at the start of the ICS article (which I copied from an old edition of the ICS). As to showing the NATO equivalents, that is already done at Naval_flag_signalling, and I think done well. (I wouldn't change that, but it might be an interesting project to add a row with the Russian flags.) We don't have a "NATO flags" article that would invite a comparison with the ICS flags, and I don't really see that the ICS article should go beyond the ICS. In short, I think the numerals table is — how's the expression? redundant to need? :-0


 * (Almost forgot!) I think the numeric complements are fine; leave them in! Though I think you don't need the column on how many numerals; that's the kind of detail best left to the source. And do see if you double up the table so it is more compact. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I live nowhere near a coast (I'm in Atlanta).

If you've created SVG files for the flag images, I think I won't do anything regarding flag redesign. I'll just leave it to you to upload those images when you get a chance. Can you confirm that the files you've created are SVG. SVG is infinitely scalable, unlike other graphics formats, and is the preferred format on Wikipedia.

I have put an e-mail link on my User page, so you can reach me that way if you like. I've also attempted to send you an e-mail using the Wikipedia interface; hopefully, you'll already have received that message by the time you read this.

I understand your point about the number flags -- but note that people don't only come to Wikipedia to see a quick example: Sometimes they use this service to get source material (especially in the case of images, such as flags, that are in the public domain). Therefore, a list of number flags that link to their scalable SVG versions, rather than a static PNG file such as the one you reference, might be a very useful service. (Granted, the list of number flags will appear on other pages -- but I'm generally in favor of redundancy when it makes things easier to find.)

I have created a second version of the table broken into two segments. Is this what you mean when you say "double up the table"?

--JoeDeRose (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: On the Number Flags table, I've also widened the ICS pennant flags to 71 pixels, so that their size will be more in keeping with the size of the NATO flags.

--JoeDeRose (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, regarding "folding" or "doubling" the table. It makes the presentation a little more efficient, saving some scrolling. With a suitable scaling and adequate window width it might even be possible to view the entire table without having to scroll up and down.
 * I use Xfig to generate most of my graphics, and then convert to svg. Though off-hand I don't recall the exact path.
 * Note that making cool images available is more properly done on the Commons, though I think links to the several sets of ICS images (with a note of their differences) would not be entirely out of place here. Might even be a service. (Have you by any chance assessed those?) However, to include a table simply for the side effect of providing links to specific images is dubious. And I have yet to see any adequate basis for the numeral equivalent table anywhere except at Naval_flag_signalling, and the presentation there is quite satisfactory as is. (Aside from lacking the Russian flags.)
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I plan to deploy the new tables tomorrow (Sunday).

--JoeDeRose (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

 * Hmmm, the "#Two Columns" version is not quite up to expectations. It could be squeezed a lot, like reducing the rather ample margins, and removing the middle margin. And I think smaller images would be satisfactory. Also, the complements column could be removed, though I am inclined to try to save it. The big problem is the "Meanings" text. I think there is a way of reducing the text size. And I might (when I find my "roundtoit") review that text to see if in some cases there is more than really needed. Well, keep hammering at it! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean "is not quite up to expectations" to sound as if you're judging me. In any event, I have done the following:


 * I have deployed the one-column version. I created the two-column version at your request. But since you don't like it, and since I personally have always preferred the one-column version, I went ahead and deployed my original table. The two-column version remains above if you wish to overwrite my changes with any further edits you may wish to make on it.
 * At your recommendation, I have deployed the letter flags to the International Code of Signals page. While I would have preferred the number flags to be included as well, I skipped them on that page based on your recommendations.
 * I created some SVG files for the Russian number flags and added them, per your suggestion, to the Naval_flag_signalling section. (I also revised that table with some of the display improvements utilized in the new flag displays here.

You've given me a lot of homework in these last two weeks, so I hope you won't bristle if I give you some as well: You've made many good suggestions in the various segments on this Talk page, but many of them are out of date, and they are organized in response to posts from others. I would ask you to delete all of the content in this Talk section (perhaps with a link to the historical article prior to such deletion as an archive) and then lay out any ongoing suggestions for how the page should be handled (improvements, merging with other pages, etc.)

Here is a link to the article as it now stands, if that is useful for the purposes of creating an archive: International maritime signal flags archive - 13 April 2014

--JoeDeRose (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No! What I meant was that my expectation of how the result would look came up short. Don't worry too much about that. I still think a two-column form could be good, but obviously that would take a bit more work than I had anticipated. I appreciate your trying to make it work, and prefer to stick with what you have done rather than to do it myself.
 * The new stuff at Naval flag signalling looks good. Though as I said there, I think the table ought to be smaller so it doesn't overwhelm the text.
 * Table at ICS looks good. Though I did change the section heading. And now all is perfect?? :-)
 * Yes, it's probably about time to archive some of the Talk page. Maybe in a day or two. Do note: we don't "archive" the articles; past versions are preserved in the history.
 * ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)