Talk:Flag of Serbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serbia Portal Flag of Serbia is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Heraldry and Vexillology Portal Flag of Serbia is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

[edit] On Flag of Serbia vs. Serbian flag

I moved this page back for consistency sake. The article fails to clearly explain why it would belong in [Serbian flag] instead of here. The section on the "flag of Serbia" having different dimensions is confusing. The other flags - Flag of Montenegro, etc. deserve their own articles. --Jiang 04:48, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved it to [Serbian flag] because it makes more sense to me to talk about the flag as a symbol then about official flags separately, as it is basically one same flag used by Serb states and institutions as well as by Serbs worldwide; is Serbia would somehow cease to exist, the Serbs would still use the flag. Also, if Flag of Montenegro, Flag of Republika Srpska etc. articles would have separate pages, each page would then have to repeat the same history of the flag at the top. I also thought that some from Montenegro might find insultive to have their flag listed on the page titled Flag of Serbia, but could not have objections on a title based on ethnicity.

Currently, on Wikipedia, only official flags have articles while flags as symbols are not mentioned. For example, if you remember our talk about Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had blue-white-red tricolour with its coat of arms, Communists took down the coat and put there the communist star, and now the star is taken down as well. It makes more sense to me to talk about symbolism of this tricolour (at, say, Flag of Yugoslavia) then about each of the official flags separately. Same here. The red-blue-white design is and was the base for various military flags, flags of political parties, logos etc. It would be stupid to say that the logo of 13th Annual Convention of Congress of Serbian Unity in San Francisco (you might go to the URL to see the logo) is based on the flag of Serbia; no, it is based on the Serbian flag. Nikola 08:34, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[Serbian flag] and [Flag of Serbia] mean the same thing. How are these different?

It is my understanding of English language that [Serbian flag] at the same time could mean both [Flag of Serbia] and [Flag of Serbs]. Is it not correct? Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The former is usually implied. If you want it to mean the latter, then try Flag of the Serbs. I would rather have a large version of the official flag displayed, and leave the traditional unofficial one underneath. --Jiang 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Currently, it is only the flag of the Serb Orthodox Church and the flag of Montenegro being listed here in addition to the flag of serbia. The church flag should be displayed in that article, with a note indicating that it was adopted from a serbian flag. That article should in turn by linked here in the text itself, since it is not that actual flag of Serbia. It's better to repeat info on separate articles, than to be redirecting people to places where they shouldn't be. Think of how you would feel if I merged this article with Flag of Russia, citing that this flag was derived from that one!

The difference is that Serbian flag is inspired by Russian, while flags of Serbia, Montenegro, RS, SOC are different variants of one same flag.

Perhaps this could be resolved in this way: Flag of Serbia, Flag of Montenegro, Flag of Republika Srpska has large image of the flag, description, and says "This flag is derived from Serbian flag" and then the history of the flag could be described on that page. Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good, but how about the Flag of Serbia and Montenegro? --Jiang 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In what context is the 2:3 flag used instead of the official 1:2 flag? Is it used at all? --Jiang 09:08, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, for example, it is used on weddings, public gatherings, sport celebrations... Oftenly other variations of the flag are used but only plain 2:3 is legal technically. Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Flag change?

BBC reported that the flag had been changed to the version introduced in this article as "unofficial". Can anyone verify that everything is done and dusted and that the flag with coat of arms is official as of now? Note that the Serbian coat of arms article has been updated. Should we switch to using the "new" Serbian flag throughout Wikipedia? zoney ███ talk 19:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes it did change, though I wouldn't call this version "unofficial" but "popular". State institutions are obliged to have the flag with the CoA. Citizens and various organisations can (must?) hoist flag without CoA. I'll try to find exact text of the law. Nikola 14:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The picture is totally wrong! The flag has changed, now it has the coat of arms on its left part. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I updated the article to reflect the changes. It's good that it took us just 18 months to do it ;-). I can't find a 2:1 version (IIRC that was (semi)-official 1991-2004) around, so I removed the old reference – it's better not to have one than to have it obviously wrong (the old version had caption "1:2" when it was obvious the image was 2:3). Duja 13:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, according to Serbian Government: National symbols and anthem of the Republic of Serbia the tricolour with the coat-of-arms is the state flag, so why is it displayed as the "official flag"? Shouldn't the article show the national flag just like for all the other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.77.48 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which "other countries"? The usage for both is clearly defined, "official flag" meaning "for official use". The wording could be clarified, but the first is the state flag and the other is popular flag. Duja 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

LukaP, isn't it better that every paragraph is accompanied with the image, so that the reader can immediately see what 's it about, rather than that they're collected in a tiny gallery below? Besides, gallery is supposed to be used for numerous images related to the term but not strictly related to any particular piece of text — the case here is quite different. Duja 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grrr

Heck people, could someone mention and WP:CITE the new Constitution of Serbia, according to which apparently official and popular flags were equalized, containing the coat of arms? Ultimately, I found the citation myself. I've been fighting a lame revert war at commons:Flag of Serbia for a couple of days. Duja► 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of the People and Flag of the State

In the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, article 7. states that the Republic of Serbia has a Coat of Arms, Flag (FR: Drapeau) and Anthem.

Coat of Arms are used as Great Coat of Arms and Lesser Coat of Arms.

Flag of the Republic of Serbia exists and is used as Peoples Flag (Flag of the People, National Flag) and as State Flag (Republic Flag). So why not publish these facts in the article Flag of Serbia. Not the Anthem, Coat of Arms, etc. But Peoples flag is in use, look at the Peoples Assembly of Republic of Serbia there are allways two flags The Flag of the People and The Flag of the State. If we want to be exact then the title under The Flag of the State cann't be Flag of Serbia, but State Flag of Serbia or Flag of the Republic of Serbia. You cann't write that National flag was in use 2004-2006, because it is still in use to simbolize the difference between the State (eg. Governoment) and the People. Flag of the People or People of Serbia flag or The Flag of the People of Serbia is in Serbian language (NARODNA ZASTAVA) not (NACIONALNA ZASTAVA) so translation in English language should be appropriate. Imbris 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the imprecise formulation in the constitution did create some confusion, but it appears that there really are two flags: for example see [1]. Nikola 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Constitution is not imprecise. It is the base of all law in Serbia. Article 7 of The Constitution of The Republic of Serbia clearly states which of those two flags is the first mentioned in the text of The Constitution of Serbia. Orriginal text of the Constitution is available in English language at the official site of The People's Assembly of The Republic of Serbia - in official translation.

Third sentence of the Article No. 7. of the Constitution is "The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag.". This is why we must first and foremost portray the National Flag of Serbia before the State Flag of Serbia.

One of the most important principles of any modern state is that the nation comes before the state.

Imbris 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, but it is very confusing. The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag. - WTF does that mean? That there is one flag only, used as national and state, that there is one national and one state flag which are both one flag... ??? Nikola

I agree that it's very confusing, but I parse that garbled sentence in the sense that there's only one flag -- the one with CoA; the one without CoA was in use as national flag during the previous Recommendation.

Me too. However, notice that the original Препорука о коришћењу грба, заставе и химне Републике Србије uses exactly the same sentence with different meaning: The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag. The national Flag is a horizontal tricolour [...] The State Flag is a horizontal tricolour [...] Small Coat of arms of the Republic of Serbia [over all]. What now? Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used during the last year indeed.

O RLY? Observe I shot in front of Nemanjina 20 just two weeks ago. And I noticed more. Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus, it should probably be moved to the "history" section. I believe that your link is outdated, as it doesn't mention the new constitution at all. However, I'd like to hear an official interpretation. ZOMG, someone should really e-mail our brave government for clarification... Zemljo [Srbijo], otvori se... Duja► 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that if we do that, we would either a) not get an answer, b) get an answer from a secretary who looked up one of websites we already discuss, or c) get four different answers from three institutions we talk to.

I see a way out of this mess however. There exists Закључак о употреби грба, заставе и химне Републике Србије which was published in the Official Gazette 61/2006. (This is not the same Conclusion as the one brought in 2004.) It clearly states that there are two flags. Now, could you find when was number 61/2006 published? If it was published after the constitution was finalised, or even while talks about the constitution were underway, I say that there are two flags. Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On retrospect, my suggestion on contacting the government was fairly stupid...

I couldn't find the exact issue 61, but I found a reference to Official gazette no. 62/2006 here, which was issued on 19 July 2006. Thus, no. 61 is few days older. But, are you positive it was 2006? I found the identical (?), but undated and unsigned text here, whose properties in Word say: Created: Thursday, 19. August 2004. 16:59:00. I did find the reference to it in 61/2006 here though. Ergo, it doesn't prove much, but it is likely that it's still in effect, especially regarding that photo of yours. Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, talks about the constitution were well underway in July[2]. According to this piece, there were only a few open questions remaining. See also this. Nikola 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...and, btw, note that this page, apparently updated, does not contain the National flag (anymore -- I'd swear it used to be there last year), as well as the accompanying pdf. I think it's pretty safe to say that the national flag is not effective anymore. Duja► 08:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not too surprising given that the page is titled "State Symbols of the Republic of Serbia" and the book is titled "The Book of Standard of the Small Coat of Arms and the State Flag of the Republic of Serbia", or is it? Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but they could at least mention it... like I said, I could swear that it used to be there when I downloaded the pdf last year, but unfortunately I didn't save an offline copy. This page says "и дефинише се застава, која ће се користити као народна и као државна застава." and then goes on to describe both the national and state flag. What we have on official government pages are 4 Ghits, contradicting each other. Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can at least tell that it was never there[3][4]. One mystery less :) Nikola 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we must conclude that we can't know for sure. Worse still, I'm fairly certain that they don't know for sure. Fuck the Constitution whose text says "The flag of Serbia exists and..." O RLY? It exists?

One way or another, your research does indicate that the National Flag is/might be valid, but it's seldom used nowadays; for example, I'd expect the national flag to be hoisted on international sport events, but instead the state flag is always used. Can we say something sensible in the article along the lines that there's a mess? Apply the solution from Flag of Germany, where the one without CoA is indicated as both national and state, and the one with CoA indicated as state? (In our case, it would be for the one without CoA and for the one with CoA)? Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with any of that is that it would be OR. For example, when looking about this, I also noticed that rules about flag use are oftenly respected (the flag is not put in the middle when in group of three for example - ) but I can't write about it. I'm in favour of returning both flags as they were and keeping quiet about the issue. We're not more likely to be wrong that way than the other way, and we would not conduct OR. Nikola 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'll at least reverse the order. The national flag has largely lost the prominence, and should come second. Duja► 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In every state on the World (that has one) Constitution is as important as the Holy Bible

Except in Serbia? Or am I wrong about this? And if I am wrong about this, then the order of the flags will not be changed any more. -- Imbris 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Germany, Finland, Russia. All of those have flags of the state with CoA, but flag of the Nation is more important. -- Imbris 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution says, word for word, official translation:
The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag.
which you interpret as:
Constitution is not imprecise. It is the base of all law in Serbia. Article 7 of The Constitution of The Republic of Serbia clearly states which of those two flags is the first mentioned in the text of The Constitution of Serbia.
Sorry, but

1. You're probably not a lawyer (just like us). Ergo, this is only your interpretation. Nikola and I agreed that the sentence is hopelessly garbled. It is only you who thinks that it clearly means something, let alone that it specifies that the national flag should have precedence.
2. If you read the discussion above, you would notice that all we have of official sources are the Constitution, the Recommendation, and the two government web pages.
3. Also, the national flag is rarely if ever used these days, even on sports competitions. I also think that the national flag should be used as the primary one, but the sad fact is that it's not. Also note that Encarta, CIA Factbook, Britannica disagree with you as well. Duja► 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this order of the flags. Just the fact that they are mentioned in the constituion in one order doesn't mean that they have to be in that order whenever mentioned. Nikola 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argumentation has a point, but up to a point. Constitution is not just a colection of articles, and the order of articles are not an amusing coincedence. When we are talking about a Flag of Serbia then National Flag has precedence over the State Flag (written in the Constitution, Recomendation and the Conclusion that deal with state symbols). No one is forcing you to use the National Flag in sports, statistics, Wikipedia articles about State of Serbia, or even Serbia Wikiproject. But when we are talking about the Flag then you are clearly mistaken by the Encarta, Britannica and CIA Factbook (not allways correct), they have an article about the Republic of Serbia - thus State Flag is used., and should use National Flag of Serbia when Serbs or Serbian Nation is the topic. When the Flag is the topic then National Flag has precedence because all of official documents say so. National Assembly of The Republic of Serbia uses both of the "flags" e. g. uses The Flag of Serbia, which exist and shall be used as The National Flag of Serbia, and as The State Flag of Serbia. When we are talking about a flag we use vexilology and not political-geography (Republic of Serbia). Republic of Serbia is a different article than is the Flag of Serbia article.. -- Imbris 00:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well but this is article about flag of Serbia, not flag of Serbs or Serbians. In addition, state flag is more prominent and more oftenly used. Nikola 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia shall exist ... Not to repeat myself. And in addition W. must be factual and objective, not often correct but allways, etc. In the Parliament of Serbia (better The National Assembly of The Republic of Serbia) both flags are used, and National Flag is placed to the vexilology honour place of the "heraldical left" which is really right. When you receive an university diploma, not you, but one person, Rector signs in the right and Dean on the left side. -- Imbris 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikola's servitude towards Duje's position is obvious. W. is not a democracy to cast votes and majority rules. You need arguments. The lack of arguments on "your" part is going on your sole if you have one. And the shame is going towards you two - Austria, Germany, Finland and the rest of nordic countries have prospered because the nation preceedes the state. They all have state flag and nation flag but nation flag is always first. Another story is the article about their governments, and state. -- Imbris 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The honour place in heraldry is heraldical right, which is observer's left, and that is how the flags are placed in the parliament. Nikola 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am not wrong. Honour place in heraldry is heraldical left, viewer' right. But this debate can go on and on. I have found proofs for both honour place is left and right. -- Imbris 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are both wrong and not wrong? :) No, honour place is viewer's left, and in any way that is honour place in Serbia's flag-related laws (if two flags are displayed, flag of Serbia has to be on the viewer's left). Nikola 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be in some vexicological studies, but not all. And you say Flag of Serbia. Flag of Serbia consists of two banners, namely National Flag of Serbia (first and foremost) and State Flag of Serbia. -- Imbris 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Large CoA preceedess the Small CoA, Constitution says so. Small is more often. Even you must admit that this is correct way to go. Why not also with the Flag. See other countries that have duality with national and state flag. -- Imbris 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that in the article on coat, small should be displayed prominently, and large less prominently. Nikola 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Same as the Flag, the Large CoA is first and the Small CoA is second. -- Imbris 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People in Serbia use both

If I had not presented the National Flag in its rightful place it would still be placed in the "historical" section. The file is still "Flag 2004-2006" which is not the truth. Someone needs to check ones own perspective, and it is not I who is that someone. -- Imbris 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to ask for a RfC out of this? Or a straw poll? Nikola 11:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if people with an cool-head or with an open mind will join in commenting this case. I think that this is not neccessary. Know what is neccessary? You explaining why you changed your position. -- Imbris 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wouldn't the 1991-2004 flag have the same colours as the Yugoslav flag?

I know that people are trying to be consistent when they are getting the colours for the flags but Serbia's flag from 1945-1991 or 1992 had the same colouring as the Yugoslav flag, since Yugoslavia continued to officially exist afterwards, it seems common sense that they would pick similar colours as they had done in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.129.3 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] National Flag vs People's Flag

First term e. g. National Flag is the correct and neutral term. And National Flag is the term used in the English language rather than People's flag. -- Imbris 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mix

This article includes info on Montenegrin flags - it should be removed, this article is not about Serb tricolors but about flags of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

First proposal

First proposal

Second proposal

Second proposal

Third proposal

Fourth proposal

Fifth proposal

This is just about colours. -- Imbris (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of those flags have sources in their's descriptions -- Imbris (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colours (continued)

The colours proposed by Imbris appears to be based on a small picture of the flag at the government of Serbia's webpage which is describing the Serbian national symbols and national anthem of Serbia.[5]

As proposed by Imbris based on a small picture of the flag at the government of Serbia's webpage

However there are far more accurate, larger, and more detailed pictures available parliament of Serbia's webpage at this link [[6]] which shows large detailed templates of the official coat of arms and flag.

As proposed by me, R-41, based on colours at the parliament of Serbia's webpage which shows large depictions of the coat of arms and the flag. These colours were originally uploaded by other users and were maintained for sometime.

--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think that I have only cited the governmental web-sites, first and formost I have cited the National Assembly of Serbia web-site [7] which is a part of the official document of the Republic of Serbia called the Recommendation on the use of the Coat of arms, the Flag and the Anthem of the Republic of Serbia. There is no need to stress the information that I used is part of that Recommendation because the link which I have just previously cited can be found [8].

You are quoting the pdf file which is not part of the Recommendation and violating the agreement reached on commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg. All users agreed that these colours are closest to official ones since the pdf file you used listed different colour standards and none of those standards comes near what the pdf file displays. -- Imbris (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time arguing with you Imbris a.k.a. Rainman. You are using double accounts to make it seem that there's more people in favour of your actions. The image you found was small, the images I found were large. If you had looked closely at them, the very designs shown on the page are what the svg uploads are based on. The Government of Serbia has provided an excellent template for the flag and coat of arms, the images show the colours to be used, which have been used on Wikipedia for some time. And may I remind you that when a government shows detailed and templates of flags, with specific colours, that means that those are the colours. All this debate over the colours of the flag started when someone moved the colours away from the ones that were in the original uploads of the designs. Then the haggling started. Then to be absolutely safe and not you offend you Imbris/Rainman, they agreed to the most neutral proposal possible so no one like you would be angry, and the result is that it is WAY OFF from what the Serbian governments' detailed templates show. Don't bother me with a game of semantics about these being uploaded by a "stupid webmaster", because the image you based your image is small and undetailed and was also uploaded by a webmaster, so stop being a hypocrite. If you want to challenge me, go e-mail the Serbian government for yourself and ask what the exact official colour shades are. If they are different, They will probably be much closer to the version I and people before my time on Wikipedia have uploaded than yours. But there is no point in convincing you, you are a know it all. I have tried to listen to you, but you have only passion of anger and opinions and that does not solve anything.--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colours issue again

It is not according to Wikipedia to shout and trash users. Instead we are here to present arguments and listen to other people what they have to say/contribute (with sources). Your accusations are null and void Imbris is not Rainman.

You have disrupted the discussion by changing the colours of the second proposal, instead of uploading your proposal. It is highly unorthodox to see clear disregard of other peoples involved in creation of best possible content like Avala (original second proposal before meddling of R-41 begun. Also Nikola (made an image according the Pantone scale).

Nobody uses in real life the version of that pdf file because it is highly controversial version that contradicts itself by displaying images which do not correspond to colour codes (listed in itself) both in CMYK and Pantone colour standards.

• First and foremost - colours of the pdf file are not used in real life
• Second - The Recommendation colours are the only official colours
• Third - A compromise has been reached upon at commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg
• Fourth - When you look you would find that users complained about red being far to much pink, then maroon and reached an agreement in both names of flags and colours

There is no doubt that no matter how large or small in size are the official images that those images should be used and not some fabrications that you claim have any official status. They simply do not. First read the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia which commands that all laws must be in conformity with the Constitution. Then read the Recommendation in its official form as it is printed by the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Then compare those images with the image listed under the source No. 7.

You are being very rude in your entire approach about flags which can be seen Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia. You just keep talking about some anger and keep imposing yourself as a defender of some truth. This marks you as not being objective enough because you keep claiming that this colour pattern exist, it does not exist in a real flag ever been made with such colours. You are being disruptive and your opinion that we should eliminate all sources but your sources is contrary to Wikipedia (especially WP:SYN. You have made just that a SYN. -- Imbris (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your version of the flag, uploaded by you is nowhere on Wikipedia. The "second proposal" is not just a second proposal it has been on Wikipedia far longer than any of these proposals, it has been used on multiple pages and for a long time it had the colours that users before me, and the Serbian government have reccomended. But if you are so satisfied with it, then put it up on the infobox for the article Serbia. It won't look at all like what the Serbian government recommends, but if you are so confident then do it.--R-41 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You have destroyed the Second proposal which had support by Avala, Mile, Nikola (had simmilar colour desing) and myself. The second proposal shall be reverted when those users see what you have done. Also it is not the matter what I think but what the Serbian people use, they do not use colour which you started to advocate. Please stop with the edit-war and find some more sources in real life. You are able to find them? Or perhaps not! Stop the edit-war on something which has been agreed upon. -- Imbris (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who made "Flag of Serbia.svg" only a "proposal" discussion flag destroyed its original purpose. The "second proposal" flag existed before the discussion over the colours took place, it is posted all across Wikipedia representing the flag of Serbia, not a discussion board flag, and its not even the one that you say was agreed upon. Why is your upload for it not the colours that are on for another version uploading by you on the Flag of Serbia article?--R-41 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not making any sense with your constant arguing. You have not produced any source that the pdf colour pattern ever existed in real life. Everyone can look and find all over the Internet that the flag of Serbia has many different colours (none of which correspond to that of pdf file). Only narrow minded people would argue that some drawings (that may look like the pdf colours) are on the same level as the real time usage. The flag colours like it looks now has been edited by a number of users who did not change the colours back to those of the pdf file. Users agreed on the proposal A and not on the colours that were latter uploaded by Avala (which you have also used). Because of the compromise being reached that there would be:

• commons:Image:Flag of Serbia (national).svg
• commons:Image:Flag of Serbia (state).svg and the
• commons:Image:Flag of Serbia.svg

This is the naming compromise which would be used to ensure that every possible usage would be meet. Then nobody wished to start another colours war and the sittuation was left as it were.

Imbris (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal for discussion

Proposal for colours of the state flag of Serbia and the tricolour shades for the national flag of Serbia.

As asked for by Imbris I have restored the compromise version of the flag, and I will no longer assume my positions to be correct, it appears that the Serbian government's proposals for red do seem to be inaccurate, as Imbris has noted that the colours do not match up with the colours used on the actual flags. The following is a proposal by me which has a less purplish red. Some images of the Serbian flag indicate that it may have a brighter red than this. On Wikipedia, when a red is unknown usually the following colour shade is used which is CMYK 0-100-100-13, as used on the flags where the red is considered to be bright such as that of the Flag of the Soviet Union (1955-1991 version) and the Flag of Germany. I have decided however to use a shade of red more like the one reccomended on Image:Flag_of_Serbia.svg. Please post your views and any constructive criticism of this proposal.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Colours of Avala

Why are you not satisfied with my endorsment of the colours which Avala proposed. Those colours appear in the first source for the flag that is listed in the article [9]. Also those images are not so small to be considered as a valuable source especially because they can be found at [10] and [11]. There is more things to be considered rather than just the red colour. The blue colour should be darker than you propose. If you would just read the discussion at commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg you may realise that I have no bad faith when dealing with this issue. I thought that the agreement with other users showed that. I do not know why the CMYK and Pantone versions were deleted because they show that Pantone is more thrustworthy than CMYK (in case of those pdf suplemmented codes). So if you have previously been "for" the colours of Avala in the Flag of Serbia what changed your mind? -- Imbris (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the compromise colours best describe the small images of the Recommendation (Parliament images) and the slightly greater images of the Conclusions (Govt. images). And the two are the same colours. -- Imbris (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal image I added has been slightly changed by me, a standard flag red is being used, as Wikipedia flag images typically use this shade for bright reds or undefined reds on flags. The blue in Avala's proposal appears too purplish. This blue is more like those on actual flags.--R-41 (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been four days now since the proposal was put forward, I see no opposition to it yet. So I will upload the file under the title. If there is opposition to this I will revert it and the dicussions can continue.--R-41 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)