File talk:Flag of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg

Is there any source available for the construction details for this flag? I only found a page in FOTW, which actually claims the 1963–66 flag to have been used until 1971 and doubts if this different design was ever in official use. The new constitution doesn't seem to say anything about the proportions. –Vzb83 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060218/ids_photos_wl/r2445145027.jpg has the flag in the 2:3 ratio, and the color of the flags look very, very light (sky blue-ish), the gold looks like Pantone 116 and the red looks like Pantone 186/#ffffff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Where the strip meets the edge of the flag is different on those, too. ¦ Reisio 10:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• [1] from [2] (fr), mentioning both 1997 and 2006 flags have light blue. Here’s another picture:
• [3] from [4] (fr), with strip meeting the edges like on Image:Flag of Congo Kinshasa 1966.svg with light blue.
• [5] and [6] with photos of light blue flag.
• 1997 flag seemed to have light blue too: photos of the old flag on registered voters cards [7] and [8]

---moyogo 16:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the constitution is pretty explicit about the blue: http://www.presidentrdc.cd/constitution.html, Article 1er. ---moyogo 17:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue

The blue version on this flag is not good. It suppose to be the blue from the flag of the United Nations (also sky-blue), so a bit darker like the coat [[9]]

--Westermarck 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the former coat of arms you mention from? Is it official? Image:Armoiries de la République démocratique du Congo - 2003.svg does not have any blue (actually the former constitution did not mention any blue background for the COA). Go ahead change the blue if you prefer, but what makes you say it should be a blue instead of another? Are we going to have a blue based on subjective preferences? We should try to find some official source first and then settle for the proper blue. ---moyogo 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

New version

{{Edit request}} Here's a version of the flag with a bit less bytes. It would be good if this file could be overwritten by that one. – GeMet [talk] 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually GeMet, it would not be good. Please don't attempt to remove nominal width and height dimensions from SVG files. And please don't remove linefeed characters because it makes the files hard to read.MapGrid (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

MapGrid, what makes the file better if it contains e. g. width="800" height="600"? Remove what line feed? My SVG image is made from scratch. – GeMet [talk] 18:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

GeMet, Nominal width and height settings should be included in the SVG file because they encourage defined and consistent behavior when the file is opened natively in any standard browser. Most of the Flags on Wikimedia have nominal height close to 600px and will therefore display at roughly the same height... and always in the top left corner of the browser window. This is consistent and it is good.

If a flag does not have a native width or height, then Chrome and Firefox will do two things:

• Expand the image until it reaches the maximum width or height of the browser window.
• Center the image vertically or horizontally; this usually results in white space appearing in the top left corner of the window.

Depending on the aspect ratio of the browser the window, and the aspect ratio of the flag, zooming can make the flag slide right outside the window. It is not elegant.

In the end, all I ask for is consistent browser behavior for all flags on Wikimedia, and a price of roughly 24 bytes per flag is not too much to pay.

Also, I recognize that most simple flags are not created with Inkscape, however, it is reasonable to expect that some people will open SVG flag files in Inkscape; I do this often myelf as it is the simplest way to inpect and measure parts of an SVG drawing. If you open File:DRCflag.svg in Inkscape, it is treated as a tiny 4px × 3px file. It is not possible to zoom into any part of the drawing because Inkscape's maximum zoom level of 25600% is reached before the flag even fills half the screen.

As for the linefeed characters, I get that you did not technically remove any linefeed characters from any existing file. But your intention seems to be to replace a file that does contain linefeed characters with one that does not; to me that is the equivalent of removing linefeed characters. Please don't assume that I am picking on just you, I have complained to others about this before. Quite simply, linefeed characters make SVG file legible to humans. Legibility is important for four reasons:

• It allows you to spot errors in your own SVG code.
• It allows others to spot errors in your SVG code.
• It allows you to learn from other peoples SVG code.
• It allows other people to learn from your SVG code.

If all you want is a shorter file, please try something like this:

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="800" height="600" viewBox="0 0 16 12">
 <title>Flag of DROC</title>
 <path fill="#007fff" d="m0 0h16v12H0z"/>
 <path fill="#f7d618" d="m0 9 15-9h1v3L1 12H0zM2.92 .72l1.429 4.398L.608 2.4h4.624L1.491 5.118z"/>
 <path fill="#ce1021" d="m0 9.6L16 0v2.4L0 12z"/>
</svg>

That code will create an image that is identical to yours, except that the precision of the points on the star is four times higher than it is in your code.

The four times comes from the difference in internal resolution (16000×12000 vs 4000×3000).

I have to say that I have issues with all of the different revisions of this file. I would prefer to see center point and radius of the star tweaked so that they are simple fractions of the flags width. e.g. there is no real justification to use a star radius that is equal to 20.258172% of the flag's width unless the government were to make it so via legislation. In this case, there is no legislation and the government gives us nothing to work with. The number should be rounded to exactly 20%. I am inclined to make a construction sheet with some rounded numbers... but not today. MapGrid (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

​I got other results of calculation. With a star radius of 20.0% (= 160px, or 3.2px by viewBox) a pentagram chord of 6.086…px would result; because it is 4.624px, the radius is 2.430…px (15.1933…% of the width). Is there an error by me, or by you?

I see, you are talking about DRCflag.svg where the pentagrams radius is 20.20555…% of the width (chord is 1.156px, radius .6077…px) ; this file is a rather complicated example of coding.

BTW, is there any cause for finishing rectangles and other areas with a (superfluous) "z"? Just for documentation? -- sarang♥사랑 07:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the "z" is optional. I just feel a sense of incompleteness when I leave it out. Also, I often use Inkscape's outline mode in which there is no implicit closing of paths; open paths just look like errors or unfinished work. w:OCD could have something to do with it.

I admit that I like to create relatively small files, but the game of trying to create the smallest possible file can be detrimental if it is taken to extremes. Thus I will continue to explicitly close filled areas, and I will continue to use both tabs and linefeed characters. I will also continue to add a title tag to each file. MapGrid (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Since there's not consensus for this change, please upload yours as a new version. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)