Talk:Flag of Brazil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

north star[edit]

isn't the star on the north distrito federal instead of pará?

No, Sigma Octantis (Polaris Australis) represents DF in the flag, as the text says, all other stars surround it, because of it's polar location. Therefore, it's quite adequate to be this the star which represents DF. If I'm not mistaken, the Ordem e Progresso banner represents the celestial equator, or Tropic of Capricorn. --SnowRaptor 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It represents the equator. When the flag was first adopted Pará was the state with most land north of the equator, so it was chosen to be represented by a star above the band. Later two other states which are still further north, Roraima and Amapá, have been created, but the symbolism of that star was not changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.156.57 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ's Order Flag[edit]

How could the Christ's Order flag be used in Brazil since the 14th century? Brazil wasn't known to Europeans before Columbus for sure! From searching Google it appears that the flag was used in Portugal, perhaps, but if so the text is misleading. -- Ilya 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is also what I suspect, that it was a flag in use before the discovery of Brazil. More details of its use are needed. (SEWilco 03:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The Christ's Order Flag was already in use in Portugal when the Portuguese officially discovered and took possession of Brazil in April 22nd 1500 -being the date Brazil was added to the realms of this flag. The information regarding its first adoption in the 14th century refers to its first adoption in Portugal, not to Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.108.73 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proportions[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, the Brazilian flag ratio if 14:20, which, although is proportional to 7:10, the flag design uses the "modulo" unit, which is 1/14 of the flag's intended height. Thus, the flag dimensions are 14 modulos x 20 modulos, making 14:20 a more reasonable ratio definition. --SnowRaptor 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of Brazil[edit]

I added flags for some appropriate periods to History of Brazil. There are various more detailed articles which could also use such images. I could not identify relevance of several flag images. (SEWilco 03:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Other Flag[edit]

I find it unappropriate (to say the least) that a flag that was used for 5 days (!!!) gets so much space in this article.LtDoc 23:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbology"[edit]

"Symbology" is a non-existent, fictional field of study.

Can we come up with some other word?

I changed to symbolism, which I believe is the appropriate term.189.15.86.176 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; symbolism isn't a field of study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vex symbols[edit]

I have placed some vexillological symbols next to the flag, but not all as I am uncertain which are right.

  • Is the main flag really ? The Navy Jack is probably at least , which would make the main flag at most. However, certain sources on the Internet have also said , which makes me uncertain of the Navy Jack.
  • Is the Navy Jack therefore or perhaps the remarkable ?
  • Is the main flag or , rather than ? In other words, is the text written backwards on the other side, or is this corrected for?
    Clarification:
    means the back is equal to the front, and that the text is ligible from both directions.
    means the back has a mirror image of the front, making the text illigible.
    means the back contains a different design.
  • Is the main flag perhaps rather than the superfluous ? In other words, can you hoist the ordinary flag vertically or do you have to buy a special "vertical flag"?
        To hoist the flag vertically, you just turn it 90 degrees clockwise. 191.180.228.127 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find some answers myself, but help is appreciated. HymylyT@C 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Law 5700, Article 10th: "The National Flag can be used in all manifestation of the patriotic sentiment of the brazilian, of official or private character.", so it's .
  • According to Law 5700, Article 5th, Incise X: "Both sides should be exactly equal, with the white band inclined from left to right (for the observer looking at the band), being prohibited making a face as a mirror of the other.", so it's . TigerTjäder 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
being prohibited making a face as a mirror of the other isn't English

Colours[edit]

on http://www.worldflags101.com/b/brazil-flag.aspx it says, "Brazilian Flag Meaning: The colors green and yellow represent the Royal Houses of Bragança (Emperor Pedro I) and Habsburg (Empress Leopoldina)[..]" I also read this in a book.

This information is fully right. This is what the colors green and yellow originally meant. Green was the color of the Bragancas and yellow the color of the Habsburgs. Plus, the blue and the white represent the Portuguese cultural heritage (because the original national colors of the Kingdom of Portugal were, precisely, the blue and the white). The rubbish about "green for the forests, yellow for the richness of the soil, blue for the tropical skies and white for the peace" was invented by the Republicans in 1889 as an attempt to deny the monarchist character of the Brazilian flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.108.73 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Barbosa[edit]

Rui Barbosa was finance and taxation minister, not justice minister, as previously said.

motto[edit]

I wonder if order is the best translation of ordem. Maybe what's meant is law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motto comes from Positivism, the idea of "order" being that society and the human mind should be ordered as opposed to chaotic. So I believe that order is really what was meant, hence the translation as such. SrAtoz (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to Flag of Brazil[edit]

I've made some changes to the article to see if we can get it to FA or at least GA. I rewrote the lead and expanded the history section. I also added a construction section and a subsection on the Flag Anthem (since it is directly related to the flag), as well as supporting sources throughout the article. As it stands, I believe we might be able to achieve GA. If anyone has the time to revise the article and improve it in any way that would be awsome. I'm going to ask for a Wikipedia:Peer review to see if we can get any feedback that will help for GAC. Limongi (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review under way[edit]

There's a peer review under way for Flag of Brazil. If anyone would like to leave an input, that would be very helpful! Limongi (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag colours[edit]

Hi, Brazil flag file has been modified its colours recently; although an official source is quoted, I am afraid it is not correctly assessed that those colours are the right ones to use. Those colours do not match the ones informed in the Colours' section. Furthermore, only the current flag has been changed its colours, none of past flags have been modified. Which colours are correct? The ones of the current flag or the ones of the past flags? Regards, Mxcatania (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the past flags, we keep them the original color that they were drawn in unless there were specifications otherwise. I been working with the uploader of the current image to figure out exactly what shade is correct for the national flag. It is true that Pantone shades were mentioned before on government websites, but that information has seemed to not be copied elsewhere other than here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Brazilian and to be honest I have never seen this bright-green flag (new file) anywhere. The flag has a dark(er) green background as shown in the previous file. As for the official source quoted, I have read, and reread the source and nothing there mentions the colors. Therefore I think the file should be reverted to its previous version. Limongi (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olá, Limongi. That is the point! That is why I have started this discussion. As per me, the new colours do not match the real ones of the flag. Indeed, the flag has a darker blue and a darker green. Hope this helps, Mxcatania (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, while I am still trying to figure out the colors of the national flag, I have issues with the original government image. First, the gold diamond was not the correct size and needed to be placed more into the center than it was. I also had to fix the size of the globe (7 M in diameter while it was 6.8 on the government image). The Pantone color for green, 355, is used in some government logos but the colors just differ from agency to agency. The previous website that talked about the symbols has died, so I cannot look at the color information. However, even from the smaller stuff I found, the colors should be darker than what they are now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very personal tone[edit]

In the section about the stars, the second paragraph begins by saying "I would point out that the stars on the Brazilian flag are never visible as shown, because...". "I" who? WP policy is against articles in the first person. After all, this is not the place for personal views, but for consensus, and anyway the statement is not signed, leaving you to guess who was talking. I submit to you all that the paragraph should be rephrased, but I myself would not know how much of it to keep. Fortunately the paragraph also states that its content comes from a congressional act, so maybe this is just a matter of deleting the whole remark up until "because". I would trace the statement through the History tab until I found out exactly what changes were made and by whom, except that this should prove (1) time-consuming and (2) useless as I am not chasing guilt but improvement. What do you say I remove the sentence portion as I just suggested? SrAtoz (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just did as I suggested; please check: toned down from personal POV in the description of stars and changed wording on that paragraph and on the preceding one into contemporary English. Also, I changed the translation of "Federal Law no. 5.700 of 1st Sept 1971" into "national act no. 5,700 of 1 Sept 1971", because (1) as provided for under current constitutional Law, this act refers to the whole of the Republic, so although passed by the federal Congress, effectively it is not just federal, but national (there is a difference, though Congress passes both kinds and the numeric sequence is the same); (2) it is an "act", not a "Law", as the terminology in English is different ("Law" applying to the set of all the acts together and translating not as "lei" but as "Direito" in Portuguese); (3) 5,700 instead of 5.700; (4) the dates are more appropriately described without the "st" in English. Finally, changed the preceding paragraph to tone down from personal opinion on "the best article" about its subject. SrAtoz (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Brazil. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Monarchist Flag from the Infobox[edit]

Brazil has no official Variant Flag. Therefore, the Monarchist flag should be removed from the Infobox.

Also, Monarchists in Brazil don't constitute a relevant Mainstream Political Movement and the erroneous information in the Infobox makes it sound like they do.

I suggest this page gets locked for anonymous contributions, so Brazilians with pro-Monarchist views can't vandalize it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:B385:69E5:F954:9338:656C:3AAE (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be semi-protected, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Brazil. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Brazil. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Brazil. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I just changed a date to dmy to conform with what was in the rest of the section. Then I checked the lead section for a date format tag and found that not only was there none, the lead section uses mdy and has done since the earliest versions of this article... yet most of the rest of the article uses dmy. So it's not clear to me what the consensus is. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nification of the flag of brazil[edit]

Men 190.88.41.15 (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Brazil&oldid=1194091614"