Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Greetings to all! I copy discussion from talk page of --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}and also from article Heraldic family. I invite You to discuss this matter to reach consensus.

This article’s sentences inconsistently use both British and American spelling. I’ve made a to-do list for this article and nominated it for improvement. I’ve also notified WikiProject Bolivia (high-importance), which as I’m aware, is believed to be inactive. 2600 etc (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I could do with some assistance on this page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on this. Vexald (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Progress flag#Request move 11 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dudzcar (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:North Korea § The "new" flag is original research. Inactive000 (talk) | Political and geographical. 16:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm working on the Richmond baronets article and would appreciate help completing the heraldic achievement.

An escutcheon of the arms already exists on Commons — File:Blazon of Richmond Baronets of Hollington (1929).svg — but the crest has not yet been drawn. I'd be grateful if someone could create a freely-licensed SVG of the crest (or a full achievement combining arms + crest), so it can be added to the infobox.

The blazon, per Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage (103rd ed., 1963, p. 2056), is:

• Arms: Gules, on a fess cottised Or between two roses Argent barbed and seeded proper, a lion passant of the field.
• Crest: A demi-stag proper, charged on the shoulder with a rose as in the arms, and holding between the forelegs a rose Argent, leaved and slipped, also proper.
• Motto: Labor Vincit.

Here's a reference from the Peerage: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f9yyvm3v88kmkrz742g6i/6f21a1ef-9fdf-41c3-9edb-a7131dff2ba4.png?rlkey=4w48wdsi5d25a29uqps1lc69r&dl=0

To clarify the crest: the upper half of a stag in natural colour, with a white rose (barbed and seeded proper) on its shoulder, and holding between its forelegs a second white rose that is slipped and leaved (green stem and leaves), shown proper.

I tried generating it in DrawShield, but it can't parse the "charged on the shoulder" and "holding between the forelegs" instructions, so the sub-charges need a human hand. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!

ABehjat (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat, here's my attempt at an emblazonment based of the given blazon. Let me know if you spot anything wrong with it and I'll try to fix. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

My goodness, my dude! This is a perfect attempt! Thank you! ABehjat (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Progress pride flag be moved to Progress Pride flag, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Raskuly 🐰 02:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a broader question that affects a number of flag articles, not just the Flag of Ireland.

Some official flag specifications (e.g. Ireland, Australia and Iceland) specify Pantone colours without a coated/uncoated suffix, while others explicitly use suffixes such as C.

Following discussion at Talk:Flag of Ireland, the unsupported "U" suffixes were removed because the official specification does not include them. That seems to better reflect the source.

However, this leaves a broader question about the digital colours used in SVG files and infoboxes.

Pantone's C and U suffixes refer specifically to spot inks on coated and uncoated paper. They are not general textile designations; Pantone has a separate system for textiles (FHI/TCX). At the same time, Wikipedia is primarily a digital resource, and many Pantone-to-RGB/Hex workflows (such as Color Bridge) have historically been based on the Solid Coated library.

Given that, what should be the project-wide approach when an official specification simply says "Pantone 347" (or similar) without specifying C or U?

Should digital RGB/Hex values be:

• derived from a documented conversion source (and, if so, which one?),
• explicitly identified as derived approximations rather than official values,
• or handled in some other consistent way?

It would be useful to establish a consistent convention for all flag articles rather than handling each one individually. Marcus365 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In general, we absolutely should be doing a much better job of distinguishing between the colour specifications given in a source (official or otherwise), such a simple "Pantone 347", and editorial decisions to also include (and/or use in an illustration) a conversion to other colour systems such as RGB. JPD (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I also meant to say that we should identify conversions as conversions but in my opinion calling them approximations is confusing or at least less informative. JPD (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The essence of my question is rather this. Why on Wikipedia flags are mostly depicted in a coated palette. Although the specifications mostly do not mention suffixes? Marcus365 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

One has to wonder why official specifications don't distinguish U or C. From what I understand, it is the same ink colour used by Pantone but printed on either uncoated or coated paper, where on the uncoated paper the same ink absorbs into the paper and mixes with the white paper, resulting in a duller colour, whereas on coated paper, the ink remains on top and is thus more true to the ink's colour and producing a more vibrant result.

I think this could then be taken a few ways:

1. The C version is more true to the colour of the ink, therefore it is the best version to fall back on in case of doubt.

2. The colour varies depending on the medium, so the same flag when printed on uncoated paper should look more dull than when printed on coated paper, and we should approximate these depending on the intended medium/material. Considering screens emit light, and glossy coated paper reflects light, the C variant is likely the closer approximation for display on screens.

3. We should consider IRL flags, historically flags were often made from dyed fabrics, which might be similar to how uncoated paper absorbs inks and would be in favour of the U variant. Although unlike paper, the fabric is likely completely saturated with the desired colour, and then stitched together on the seams between colours, which may end up creating a look closer to the C variant. Additionally, however, modern flags are also commonly made from synthetic materials (such as nylon or polyester) and can be rather glossy as a result which would be another argument in favour of the C vairant. Moreover, flags are generally designed to be seen and recognised from a fair bit of distance, and more vibrant colours help with that, so it can generally be assumed that flags are intended to be the more vibrant C variant.

Ultimately, regardless of how we look at it, I think it makes more sense to assume the C variant in the digital space when no specific variant is specified.

It would also make sense to me to make a note at wikipedia pages with non-suffix pantone flag specifications of this lack of specification, and perhaps provide hex/RGB/CMYK conversions for both variants, but sticking to the C variants for how the flag is depicted in the infoboxes (and at most providing the U variant as an alternative version with some explanation of this lack of specificity in the official specifications) ~2026-48430-29 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Two days ago Alastair Bruce of Crionaich Tweeted this photograph of William's stall plate at Westminster Abbey. We now finally have confirmation that he does indeed use the full heraldic achievement of the Prince of Wales. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Do anyone have any source for whether the flag used in the infobox of the Republic of Benin (1967) (former Nigerian break-away state), actually existed. It very much seems to be just copy of the flag of Biafra, and the only source I can find are various internet forums like FOTW, which should not be trusted as sources, the same way Wikipedia alone can not be seen as a source of its own. I tried to bring the issue before on the article for the flag itself, which was since deleted (for the lack of sources), but I was basically just told that "it probably exists, but African sources aren't widely available". I personally disagree with that view point, since we can not run the encyclopedia on the view that "sources are somewhere out there but can't be accessed at the moment", and we should be especially critical on topics like this, which can easly slip under the radar, especially considering there were other cases of fake obscure flags being used in the infoboxes for years without deduction. So, I wanna ask, if anyone can verify if this flag is real or fake. Thank you. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It's completely fake and almost certainly extrapolated from Biafran patches; one of the Flag Bulletins from the period of the war confirmed it had no flag as well. James Minahan has it in one of his books on flags of stateless nations but almost everything he published are complete lies and falsehood. I have no idea where the design originated online. NorthTension (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have recently proposed a new "Emoji" field for the flag infobox template (as well as several other templates).
This field would add a new (optional) tab to the infobox, labelled "Emoji". It would then display the emoji as well as a Unicode code-point sequence as the value. (For example, on the US flag, the value would be "🇺🇸《NEWLINE》[U+1F1FA, U+1F1F8]".)

Currently, I am trying to reach consensus on whether this field should be added or not. (I have submitted an edit-request but it has been denied - I have been told to achieve consensus first.)


I have already set up a working example here: [example].

I have explained parts of my design here: [flag-emoji explanation].


This is my initial template-modification request. Currently, it is not accepted (due to a lack of consensus): [edit request].

(I have made this post to try to achieve consensus.) TEST-user-97641C88 (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I would ask you to please be patient, editor TEST-user-97641C88, because you've given Project editors substantial material to read, digest and to understand. For my part, and after reading your proposal pages, I would have to ask in regard to [ this example ], precisely how is this rather cryptic "emoji" information in the example ibox helpful to Wikipedia readers? Forgive me because I'm still a little hazy on that. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The existence of the Emoji information is mainly useful for copy-and-pasting: Wikipedia readers can easily copy and paste the flag emoji. The emoji tab also denotes existence of the emoji ("a Unicode emoji of this flag is in existence"). TEST-user-97641C88 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Different pages have conflicting information on the flag of Italy from 1946 to 2003. There’s an image File:Flag of Italy (1946–2003).svg, and it used to be associated with the alias 1946 in the “Flag variants” section of Template:Country data Italy. That alias was redirected to the current flag (the default variant) in response to this edit request, which claimed a consensus on Talk:Flag of Italy of which I found no evidence. Soon afterwards, the alias was removed in response to this edit request (with no additional effect, since non-existent aliases also yield the default). So the country data template is currently based on the position that the flag from 1946 to 2003 was identical to the current flag.

But that’s not what Flag of Italy and List of Italian flags say – they both show File:Flag of Italy (1946–2003).svg as the flag of the Italian Republic from 1946 to 2003 (with a “citation needed” note in the case of Flag of Italy). To add further confusion, List of Italian flags gives the “date” (presumably of introduction) of the current flag as 1 January 1948, whereas Flag of Italy says 8 June 1946. (There’s also a recent talk page comment here.)

I have no opinion on what the “correct” colours were between 1946 and 2003 – if they hadn’t been standardized, there may be not have been any one “correct” version. But the country data template and the two articles should be brought into agreement one way or another. Joriki (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Country data Paraguay, Flag of Paraguay and List of Paraguayan flags are out of sync:

• Template:Country data Paraguay has flag changes in 1954, 1988 and 1990.
• Flag of Paraguay mixes 1954 and 1957 and has changes in “the 1970s or 1980s” instead of 1988 and 1990.
• List of Paraguayan flags has 1954 and “1970s”.

Joriki (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This article’s sentences use inconsistent American and British spellings, and the article needs more citations. I’ve made a to-do list and nominated this article at WP:AFIN#Flag of Romania. I’ve also added an almost identical topic to WT:RO#Flag of Romania. 2600 etc (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm currently working on rewriting the entire article of the coat of arms of Aceh, but I'm not too familiar with heraldric terms, could anyone help with describing the both current and proposed coat of arms?

And if possible, could I also request on a reconstruction of the 2013 and 2016 proposals? The 2013 proposal is the image shown, and the 2016 proposal can be found here . Zayn Kauthar (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of national flags is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of national flags (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings! I have created a draft article named List of armed factions during the Myanmar Civil War. I need help with images that are free licensed. There are many armed groups in Myanmar, each with their own unique identity. Many of them do not even have free use images posted on Wikimedia Commons.

If someone could help me by creating these existing symbols on Wikimedia Commons, that would be great. I would also need an overall list of such symbols and flags, here are just a couple of examples https://yt3.googleusercontent.com/bERtTwlcGrhvOsFTco9wLBVlohweuOqOskDsHUBcqXy2-4Pi5DCDdCQQXE309y_Ng536K_7h7A=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj, https://i.redd.it/flags-of-some-of-the-numerous-armed-groups-involved-in-the-v0-a4459a6yb1hb1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=78cabe0a060437ecbfce0556dbb3bf25acfaae86. You will receive credit. More info in the draft's talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:List_of_armed_factions_during_the_Myanmar_Civil_War

Thank you! 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 11:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)