Talk:Flag of Belarus

Old comments

Why can't I see the thumbnail on the main page? I have to click on the image link to see the flag, and then only full-size. Also, several other flag images are blank.Yahnatan 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I had some problems in the past trying to load images, mainly due to server issues. Also, depending on what browser you use, the SVG images might not work. Zach (Sound Off) 00:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

i dont know...-User:Carsoncocars

I really don't see the point of using SVG images in this article, especially for the first image. It doesn't load in IE, and most people visit Wikipedia with Internet Explorer. Why do we need SVG so badly as to alienate those users and prevent them from seeing the flag on one of our featured articles? Ronline 03:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I was bitched at to do SVG images, mainly flag images. Zach (Sound Off) 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence about "independent observers"

I removed the sentence "Independent observers have said that the referendum that selected the current flag did not meet democratic standards." for the following reasons:

1. no reference/source given, which is not good, considering article's features status. Who reported this? When? Is that a consensus view?
2. vague
   1. who were the observers? How many were they, what exactly have they found?
   2. they are independent from whom? Were they financed by Western political groups? By Western governments? By international and supranational organisations? Or are they not "independent", but rather "opposed to existing government"?
   3. what exactly standards were not met? Were there violations at polling stations? Were some groups limited from participating? Was government trying to force people to vote in one or another way?
3. misleading. It uses a loaded and poorly defined term "democratic". Saying that a referendum didn't met a democratic standard is extremely disengenious and misleading. A referendum is the epitome of democracy, itis democratic almost by its very definition.
   1. biased. Clearly the line was inserted as a potshot at the current administration of Belarus by one of its opponents.

Paranoid 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The main source was from http://www.fotw.net/flags/by_law.html#ref, but the main website presenting this information are kaput. The information in the lead is fine now, I am not going to turn this into an edit war. Zach (Sound Off) 06:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Better yet, I personally thank you Paranoid for coming by and checking my work. While I try to maintain NPOV as much as possible, I do admit that I have a slight bias that might be towards Luka. Most of the sources I have are government information, and Belarusian websites about the flag are few and far between. Zach (Sound Off) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link

The 'White Rus' link is broken. Should it point to "White_Ruthenia"?

Yeah, lets try that. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "Pahonia" the former coat of arms?

This article makes two references to the pre-1995 flag as the "Pahonia" flag. The pre-1995 coat of arms was indeed called "Pahonia" (other spellings exist) but I've never heard the flag referred to by the same name. See e.g. Pahonya. Comments anyone? --Valentinian 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

you're right. --Monkbel 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologizes. BTW, I was wondering if yall wish to stick around and possibly work with me on trying to get this article to the Wikireader?

Not interested. This red-green awful flag is too temporary, too autocratic and too anti-Belarusian to contribute to article about it. Why to write about something what will ceize to exist in less then a year? --Monkbel 00:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there are elections in Belarus next year. I will try to pay attention to the debates, though I think they will get little interest in the USA. I remember watching the news about Luka's "victory" in Sept of 2001, but after about two days of the election coverage and the US State Department debates, it happened. Also, if the flag changes, it will give us a chance to have people look at this and also, perhaps, bring other Belarusians into the project. Though, Monkbel, many of the topics I have written about have many ties into the current Belarusian "government," such as Hero of Belarus and My Belarusy. Zach (Sound Off) 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Flag's proportions

The construction sheet shows the proportions of the flag incorrectly: the decorative pattern is given here as occupying one tenth of the flag's width, not the stated one ninth. Correct proportions are (reduced to the lowest integer factors): across, 2 and 16; down, 6 and 3. Vilcxjo 16:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Belarusian Presidency website, http://president.gov.by/eng/simbol/90d2c3741d228.html, said that the length of the ornament/decorative pattern is 1/9 of the flag's width. Zach (Sound Off) 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are getting at. I'll fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Typo? "rye, bread, and salt"

I know little of Belarus, though more than before after reading the article. But there may be a typo in the sentence "An example of their use would be a host offering his guests rye, bread, and salt, which would then be served on a rushnik." Shouldn't it read "rye bread and salt"? Peter 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 00:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Border image for the Flag of Belarus

Hello! Can you please place a border around the flag of belarus it should not be so difficult i think

Sondre

Ensign?

According to the flag protocol ("By law, the Belarusian flag is supposed to be flown daily, weather permitting, from the following locations: (...) Military bases or military ships owned by the government"), the flag could be used as an ensign (governmental and naval), so I guess the right vexillological symbol is or or even . Am I right? NL-Ninane 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no official navy of Belarus, but the border guards have their own ensigns. Ill take a look at it when I get home, but yes, the FIAV symbol might change on here (I will probably have to change it on FOTW too). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

The text says the following:

The referendum that was held to adopt the state symbols took place on May 14, 1995. With a voter turnout of 64.7%, the new flag was approved by a ratio of three to one (75.1% to 24.9%). The other three questions were also passed by the voters. The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition. Also, actually only 48.6% of the total electorate approved of the new emblem, since over a third of the eligible voters did not express an opinion. Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue.

This is not because of the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian law but this is the way how democracy works. Meursault2004 12:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Does democreacy work overriding constitution where it is writtent that "referendum has no law power" and only "advisory"? It happend only in Belarus (breaking constitution). Any other country with such "democracy"? Lisouczyk1 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence you highlighted, there are statements that they deem this election flawd due to the low vote count that was used to adopt not just the flag, but the state emblem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence reads better now. Meursault2004 01:03, 15 April 2007 (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:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

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) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is this an article by the regime? "Certain elements" use the right flag... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.165.141 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag image in lead

The flag image in the lead is the 2012 design. It is not what was approved in 1995. It is similar to that, but it is a design which has had no official status until this year. It is not a design that was changed in 2012, it is a design that did not exist until 2012. The flag that was adopted in 1995 had a white margin either side of the red pattern, and that is not what is shown here. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to other national flag articles, especially if the modifications are slight, the original adoption date is put into the "adoption date" section of the infobox. When the flag is modified in a slight way, and in our case the ornament pattern was just stretched out, we add a second date to say when was the main flag modified to the current form. This is what was done with the article on the US flag, Japanese flag, Lithuanian flag, Brazilian flag, Ecuadorian flag, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, among others. If there is a concern about the colors, the colors have been the same before the change of the pattern, but just didn't have the tools to convert the colors properly until now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But that is simply not what design means. Design means the size, shape, colour and arrangements of the elements that make something up. The size, shape and arrangement has changed: it is a different design. Kevin McE (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still when compared to the 1995 flag, that is the only thing has changed and the change of the ornament was mostly stretched out. The only thing I can compare this to was the Serbian flag change not too long ago; the entire coat of arms was redone. While still pretty much that was the only change to the flag, from what I was able to read, it is pretty much considered a "new flag." From what I seen from Belarus, the only ones I noted the change was from State Committee for Standardization of the Republic of Belarus. However, I do not think we see eye to eye on this (and plus a lot of updates needs to happen for this article, of which I am not able to get to it at this moment) so I would suggest for others to maybe look at it. Though honestly, as long as we said the original flag is from 1995, yet updated in 2012 to this current pattern, we should be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Was a flag that featured a red pattern that was 1/9 the total width of the flag approved in 1995?

Answer: No.

Conclusion: The assertion in the infobox is false.

Question: Is the flag pictured in the infobox the one that was approved in 1995

Answer: No. The flag that was put to the vote in 1995 had a white margin either side of the red pattern.

Conclusion: The assertion in the infobox is false.

Of course we can state that the current flag is only slightly changed from the 1995-2012 version, but we cannot show a picture of something that had never been seen in 1995, and say that it was approved then. A different design is a different flag: a flag is nothing but a design. Kevin McE (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, many nations have made modifications to their flag that were slight in nature and not a complete overhaul. The basic design did not change, the basic flag did not change, the only thing that change was how wide the ornament pattern is. For the US flag, just more stars were added. For some countries like Ecuador, Russia and Lithuania, there was a ratio change. Plus, the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, so it is correct to say the basic flag design was adopted in 1995 via referendum, but to say the flag was slightly modified to change the ornament pattern. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see what other flags have got to do with the basic truthfulness of the sentence we are publishing about this flag. The flag as it is commonly constructed was not thought of (as far as we know), yet alone approved, in 1995. It's fine to say that the current flag was introduced in 2012, and is based on a flag approved by the 1995 referendum; it is not accurate to put the words "Adopted June 7 1995" under the 2012 flag. Nor can I see why anyone would want to. It is simply untrue. If you show an image, stating that it was adopted in 1995 and that it was updated in 2012, the reader is going to ask themselves "What was it updated to? Why don't you show us that?" Kevin McE (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because we have a section in the article about the 1995 vote with the design that was chosen. We also explained it in the lead of what changes were made in 2012 and who done it. As for why I brought up other flags, it is because that is how other articles were constructed and trying to remain consistent with them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to ask what information you are giving to those who visit this page. Other articles are irrelevant to them. If there is a section about the 1995 vote, then that is text about a flag that is not the one pictured. The same mistruth is told in the lead paragraph as in the caption beneath the picture in the infobox: the current flag was not approved in 1995. The 1995 version was approved in 1995. Changing a flag results in a different flag. Kevin McE (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 design didn't come out of thin air, and that is what we are trying to do here. The flag was originally done in 1995 by a vote, and that has been explained in the lead, the infobox and also the 1995 vote. I also explained in the design section the original flag called for a design of a certain style, then modified by a state committee in 2012. Everything is accurate, readers will be fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Everything is not accurate. There is a picture of a flag that had not been seen outside of committee rooms before Februrary 2012, with text below it saying that it was adopted in 1995. That is quite plainly false. Of course "the 2012 design didn't come out of thin air", and nobody has suggested that it was. An accurate statement, that the current flag is adapted from one that was voted upon in 1995, would be very welcome: a statement that that picture shows something that was adopted in 1995, is not. It is a completely false statement. I cannot understand why you want to make it. What truth is served by claiming that a flag never seen in 1995 was adopted in 1995? Kevin McE (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the infobox. I do not know how much clearer I can make it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything that makes a false statement is not a fix. I've presented the truth. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a false statement to say the original flag was from 1995, modified in 2012. The infobox is supposed to be a very brief summary, and that is what is presented. Plus, in the document from the government, even though the amendment was from 2012, it was presented as an amendment to a 2008 document, so to solely say it is only from 2012 is going to be false. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a false statement, but to show a flag adopted in 2012 and say that it was adopted in 1995 is. Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the infobox; it says 1995 (with smaller ornament pattern), below says 2012 (Updated, above, design with thicker ornament). This is similar to what was done with other articles (like with the US flag; we both know there was not 50 states in the Union in 1777 when the flag was adopted, so what they did was they had the original adoption date of 1777 for the original flag, 1960 for the version with 50 stars). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I know little, and care less, about the history of the US flag, although from what you say, it sounds as though that article might also be wrong.

Given that the current flag of Belarus is not the 1995 flag, the adoption date of the 1995 flag is simply historical data, and it is only remotely related to current flag, which was adopted on 10 February 2012. The infobox shows the current flag, so the only relevant adoption date is that of the current flag, not any previous version. In terms of describing the adoption of the current flag, the only relevant date is that of the adoption of the current flag. In terms of the accuracy of that date, it makes no difference whether the change was minor or major: a different design is a different flag, and each and every flag has a distinct date of introduction. Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you do not know how a lot of flag articles work at all, with all due respect. If we use your logic, then a lot of the article's history would be removed. The only thing about the 2012 design we can even report is "On February 2012, the GOST agency released a new pattern for the flag. It became official May 1st, 2012." So to ignore the backstory of the flag is just lunacy. Since we both will not agree, I think this should be taken to a wider audience. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do you conclude that lack of interest in the US reduces the validity of my comment? That comes accross as arrogant, and the patronising "due respect" comment exacerbates it. And I would suggest that the illogicality of your argument is based on the sense of the importance of "flag articles", rather than the importance of providing readers with information about flags. Your main defence has been that this is what is done in other flag articles; my argument is that a reader looking at a picture with one flag in it is going to expect to read underneath it the date that pertains to that flag, not to others from which it may have evolved.

You are totally misrepresenting my argument. I have never said that we should dissociate the current flag from its predecessors, nor that we should not refer to similarities. On the contrary, I have added text that does exactly that.

So we have a picture of a flag that no-one had even seen in 1995, with the text below it claiming that it was adopted in 1995. This is wrong, false, misleading and illogical. The 2012 flag is different from the 1995 one: it does not matter how different. The current flag was introduced in 2012. The only other possible "adoption" date that could possibly be relevant is the introduction of any flag for any territory describable as Belarus: the concept of a flag of Belarus was not new in 1995.

What is it that was introduced in 1995? The second flag of post-Soviet Belarus, at least the seventh for the territory, which is not dissimilar to one that preceded it as a flag of BSSR, but was quite different to the one that immediately preceded it, and has now been replaced. How is that any more a date for the introduction of the concept "Flag of Belarus" than 1991 or 1917? Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zscout370 that this is a refinement of the design, not a complete change. If we took Kevin McE's approach then almost no flag older than ten years would have the correct date, as colours have been refined, flag shapes modified, lines thickened or narrowed, etc. none of which alter the basic design. One way of testing whether it is a new design or a refinement of an existing design is whether the average person on the street in the country concerned would notice the difference. In the case of Belarus I can confirm that Belarussians apparently don't notice the change as all the flags used at the Olympics in London are the old design and no one has complained! Incidentally the image on Wikipedia is slightly wrong as it omits the 1/189th of the flag length red stripe at the hoist. It is clearly shown on the specification diagram at Flag Specifcation at The State Committee on Standardization of the Republic of Belarus GrahamPadruig (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If most flags have changed in the last 10 years, then most flags should not have a date more than 10 years ago: why is that undesirable. A refinement of an existing design is no longer the original design: it is a different design. Similar, perhaps, but different. A flag is nothing other than an arrangement of colours, ergo a different arrangement of colours is a different flag. What definition of design are you working by? Kevin McE (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the ride stripe at the hoist, it is mostly used a border between the actual flag and the hoist sleeve of the flag (from what I have noticed from flags I purchased from there) but we can make an image with that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

differences of the ornament pattern

I feel the sentence should be added: The current ornamental pattern lacks, among other things, crosses easily visible even on the flag used in Soviet Union. This seems important to me as those differences are easily seen while comparing flags (the Soviet design, 1995-2012 design, current design) seen in the current article. Simply speaking, the current ornament pattern is greatly different from 1995-2012 pattern.

It would be nice to have any clear-cut explanation of this perplexing and intriguing issue. I simply do not understand why my editing regarding this is repetitively removed from both pl.wiki and en.wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.177.39 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of the ornaments

The ornament pattern from the current Belorussian flag is actually just a stretched-out version of that from the 1995 design. The pattern from the flag of the Byelorussian SSR has its colors switched and has two red stripes added on either side of the ornament, compared to the 1995 flag. I'm not sure which "easily visible crosses" you say are missing from the current design; other than the omission of two small rectangles near the center of the current flag, I don't see any difference in the actual design of the ornaments. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I will do my best to be precise then. Crosses are visible within small rombs (two columns of four rombs) on both Soviet and 1995-2012 designs. These crosses are missing on current design. It seems to me that this is not a matter of optical delusion or simple widening of the pattern. If I am right the question is why it happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.33.153 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

These crosses are probably just a result of the "pixelated" design of the ornament. Presumably, in the two earlier designs, they chose for "+" shapes to represent small rhombuses within each rhombus (giving each a "◇" shape). In 2012, they reduced the total number of "pixels" in the ornament, replacing the "+"es with small 1x1 rectangles. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Still, it is sad to me that these crosses are missing from the current design. Anything wrong with the crosses or what? Even for Soviets they were OK, but nowadays it is better to have them replaced? It's beyond my comprehension, really! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.142.233 (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, these crosses were probably not meant as crosses in the first place, just as "holes" within each rhombus. The size of each rhombus was reduced from 7×16 to 5×5 "pixels" in 2012, so the "holes" had to be represented by 1×1 rectangles, whereas the pre-2012 designs allowed enough detail for these "+" shapes 3×6 rectangles in size. The actual design didn't change; the way it is displayed did. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be as you suggest, but do you have any idea why it was decided in 2012 that the way of design displaying rally needs to be changed. In what way it is more convenient than previous displays? Also, have in mind that all parts of ornamental pattern apparently have important spiritual/ideologic meaning attached to them, this is not simply a matter of decoration. = So the change of way of displaing might mean that spiritual meaning also changed. So again the question is why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.117.223 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just guessing as well, actually, though it seems that these "+"es don't have any "spiritual" meaning as crosses (if they had, I wouldn't know why they were replaced by rectangles). The "+"es would probably just be rhombuses if the design allowed for diagonal lines, though, again, I am not sure of anything. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, If you find anything definitive on why it was decided in 2012 that the ornamental pattern, apparently of folk origin and carrying important symbolic/spiritual messages characterizing the mentality of Belarus people as decribed in this wiki article, needs changes, share your knowledge with readers like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.9.207 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Just to expand previous entry. Detailed description of the symbolic meaning of the decorative pattern can be found in pl.wiki article on Belarus flag. Again, why it was decided in 2012 to change the way of this pattern display.

All-white flag

According to One Europe - 100 Nations by Roy N. Pedersen (1992, Channel View Books, ISBN 1-85359-123-8): "On achieving independence, Belorussia briefly had a plain white flag, replaced in 1917 by the white-red-white flag ...". Domhnallbeag (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Arauca

in section Similar flags the Flag of Arauca is different than the flag Arauca page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.18.118 (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The link is wrong, The Arauca city flag is different from the Arauca Department flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.18.118 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, see Special:Diff/759988590. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Belarus. 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/20120226180506/http://www.nn.by/1998/06/14.htm to http://www.nn.by/1998/06/14.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Flag of Belarus. 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/20101222112910/http://president.gov.by/en/press88691.html to http://president.gov.by/en/press88691.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011225918/http://www.belta.by/ru/info?id=93057 to http://www.belta.by/ru/info?id=93057
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121129015335/http://korea.mfa.gov.by/eng/rb/national_symbols/ to http://korea.mfa.gov.by/eng/rb/national_symbols/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927164427/http://pravo.by/lawhistory/konst.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129020006/http://pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1927.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1927.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929141907/http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1937.htm to http://www.pravo.by/lawhistory/konst_1937.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121132541/http://arche.bymedia.net/2007-04/vaskievic704.htm to http://arche.bymedia.net/2007-04/vaskievic704.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122161921/http://fotw.net/flags/by%5E.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/by%5E.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Image issues

This article has been chunked up with images causing MOS:SANDWICH; in a Featured article, this should be addressed to retain status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zscout370: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 see the error cats at the bottom of this page ... vital articles is now all red. ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: before the flag was listed in an "unknown topic" – I checked other flag articles and they were all the same, I suspect that the categories don't exist yet because all of the flag articles have incorrect categorization (if you see what I mean?). This is probably all due to the fact the Vital 5 list is rather undeveloped afaik. Btw, am working on this article and will ping you once I tidy up the images, refs and prose. Aza24 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've now formatted, archived and added refs, which I believe was the most outstanding issue. The images should also be good now. The prose could use some tweaking but it's nothing to FAR about – I'm of the opinion that this is "satisfactory" now, but let me know what you think. Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding it to my list (ping me if I forget :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 thanks (as always) for the work ... I am marking it Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph of white-red-white flag section needs a citation, but other than that this seems to be okay, and FAR would not be a helpful process here, so I'm marking it as satisfactory, as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

The photo in the infobox, should be changed from Flag_of_Belarus_(1918,_1991–1995).svg to Flag_of_Belarus.svg. The white-red-white flag is not the current national flag, and this can cause confusion.(talk) 23:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Bsoyka (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured article concerns

This article is listed as Featured, but it does not meet the WP:FARC. This article is not in good enough shape, as after comparison, it definitely does not match the level of other FA-class flag articles like Flag of Canada, Flag of India, Flag of Japan, Flag of Singapore. There needs to be improvement/expansion/creation of protocol, related flags and symbolism sections in the article Flag of Belarus. Compared to the other FA-class articles on national flags, this article also lacks a construction sheet, which is rather important. (posted this here at the suggestion of Z1720 at WT:URFA/2020 on 11 April 2022).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

White-blue-white flag

Hi, @Matthiaspaul. I noticed that you added "The white-red-white flag also gave inspiration to the white-blue-white flag used in the 2022 anti-war protests in Russia" to this article, but didn't provide a source. Could you please give your source for this statement? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Another editor removed the references although they supported the statement. I have reworded the statement to be even more in line with the references and readded the sources, now also giving quotes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Historical flag in Infobox?

Why do we have the historical white-red-white flag in the infobox? This seems strange as other flag-based articles dont have this. They might have a variant flag, but not a historical flag, we should remove it, and keep it in the historical flags section.

~~~ LuNaCy (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ive noticed it has been changed a couple time with the most recent by @Dudhhr. Why do you think it is relevant? I understand the political movement for democractizing Belarus, but its only relevant due to politics which Wikipedia tends to avoid. Not to mention my above points

~~~ LuNaCy (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)