Talk:Republic of Cuba (1902–1959)#Shade of blue on the cuba flag

I have read the article on the Cuban flag on Wikipedia, the Britannica article on the Cuban flag, and a website called Cuban flags.com none of which mention a Sky blue variant of the Cuban flag they all say that the same flag has been used since 1902. but when I tried to replace that flag with the regular Cuban flag my edit was reversed is there something I'm missing? Flags200 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignore the misspellings Flags200 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

::The file itself has these sources:
http://www.nacion.cult.cu/en/sobrebandera.htm
and "cubaflags.com" (which you talked about?) also mention the same change.
https://www.cubaflags.com/
Here is also a vintage 1940 flag https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0216/05/cuban-flag-vintage-1940-pre_1_af5fe2b808af826e82e1e3de3c40ba4a.jpg --Havsjö (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

:::Just adding more to this since there is still some discussion about what shade of blue. I am unconviced at this stage that the sky blue variant associated with Cuba before the Communist Revolution was ever used in an offical capacity. The only sources provided are two websites that don't cite their sources, and a flag that could be potentially a misprint or faded from use.

:::This is because the standard appearance and design of the flag are laid out clearly in the [https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:2583286$12i Cuban "1906 Presidential Decree of April 24"]. It also does the same for the coat of arms and shows the blue being that of a dark turqoise. I also went through flag books from the period before the Batista Government was overthrow. While these books aren't always 100% right with their depictions, these references show Cuban flag with the darker turqoise blue as shown in the decree. These can be seen [https://imgur.com/a/FbGNkKN here]

:::Considering as well that the publishers of these books were the admiralty of various nations, universities and well respected scientific and educational institutions, I think these provide enough evidence that the sky blue variant wasn't used offically.

:::If someone has sources showing that a lighter blue was used at some stage, that would be much appreciated as my search hasn't found anything bar a few references in a few articles. Blackfalcon501 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I searched for valid sources with help of the AI, and I reached the conclusion that before the Revolution, the shade of blue wasn't clarified by any law. When the communists came to power, they fixed this mistake.

::::So, in my opinion, I would put the blue sky shade on the First Republic, to differentiate it from the actual regime. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Can you share these sources? Because at this stage I have an offical government decree from 1906 that shows the shade of blue was not sky blue and is specifically refered to as turqoise. Additionally it also has a depiction of both the flag and coat of arms at the end of the document showing the flag as such. Blackfalcon501 (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would also like to see these sources. [https://imgur.com/a/FbGNkKN The multiple contemporary sources] posted by Blackfalcon501, clearly shows the darker shade of blue featured on the Flag of 4 September 1933. Additionally, the sources shows the national flag with a much darker shade than the presidential standard. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)}}

::::::Yes, of course. So far this fonts are:

::::::Wikipedia en español: Tras la Revolución Cubana y la toma de poder por los Castro, se oscurecieron los colores de la bandera y el cuartel franjeado del escudo.

::::::But, in fact, now I do realise that these part of the text is actually mine, I did it.

::::::dialnet.uniroja.es: La bandera no fue alterada por Fidel Castro (stands for your position: the flag was always like that).

::::::Then, I told him to look into government pages:

::::::MINREX: Tras una revisión exhaustiva de las fuentes disponibles, no se ha encontrado evidencia concluyente que indique que Fidel Castro haya ordenado un cambio en el tono de azul de la bandera de Cuba tras la Revolución. La Ley No. 128-2019, "Ley de los Símbolos Nacionales de la República de Cuba" (this is a modern law), no menciona modificaciones en los colores de la bandera.

::::::But, it sostains that: Es importante señalar que, a lo largo del tiempo, pueden haberse producido variaciones en la tonalidad de los colores de la bandera debido a diferentes procesos de fabricación, materiales o interpretaciones artísticas. Sin embargo, no hay documentación oficial que respalde un cambio deliberado en el tono de azul por parte del gobierno revolucionario.

::::::So, you can get your conclusions. I don't want to be under a bias, so if tell me you opinion, I'll gladly read it.

::::::Good evening. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say sorry. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you agreeing that the sources I've provided show that Cuba standardised their flag with a dark blue "turqoise" instead of the sky blue? Blackfalcon501 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I exposed the fonts the AI used to answer my question, which was (translated to english) "What valid fonts can confirm that Fidel changed the Cuban flag's shade of blue from light to dark after the Revolution?". After that I told him to look for it in a government font, as I explained.

::::::::With all of that, I think that as the shade of blue was never clarified by any law (some laws said that the official color was turquoise blue, but it wasn't very controlled, as like the Puerto Rico flag). When the communists came to power, they fixed this mistake. And in fact, turquoise blue is a very more close color to sky blue than to dark or indigo blue. Besides it's better, for the Wikipedia users, to leave this design in this pages, as it's more easy to differentiate the 1st Republic from the actual regime using the flag and coat. That's why I think it's better to use the sky blue shade for the First Republic, whereas the darker shade is better for the actual flag.

::::::::For my conclusion, I checked all of this information using AI, to whom I told that the turquoise blue was closer to light blue than dark blue, addressing him to the english Wikipedia article for that color. He answered focusing in the laws (as that was the last thing I had asked him) and said:

::::::::<

::::::::Esto significa que, si bien se describía el color de la bandera como “azul turquí”, no existía, al menos en una ley previa a la Revolución, una estipulación técnica que definiera exactamente ese tono. Por otro lado, el término “azul turquí” se asocia en la práctica –como se explica en el artículo de Wikipedia sobre el color turquesa– a un tono que se acerca más a un azul claro o celeste, con matices verdosos, y no tanto a tonalidades oscuras como el añil o el azul marino.

::::::::En resumen, aunque la ley de símbolos o los decretos de la época establecían el uso de “azul turquí” para la bandera, no se especificaba de forma técnica el tono exacto. La descripción era más descriptiva y simbólica, lo que permitía cierta variación en su interpretación y fabricación.>>

::::::::And again, I don't want to be accidentally falling into a bias, so if you have some contrasted information with wich you could correct something or change my conclusions, feel free to answer.

::::::::Have a good evening. SunMoonAndLight (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: I still don't see any sources. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources (RS) as such, simple output from an AI model is not enough, along with the fact that AI output is not considered reliable. We have [https://imgur.com/a/FbGNkKN multiple contemporary sources] showing a darker shade of blue. Unless any actual RS information is actually present, the colour should be changed to the one supported by sources. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree with Skjoldbro, AI is not a reliable source especially when I have provided a primary source as well as multiple contemporary secondary sources disproving the light blue was used offically. While you are correct that the specific shade of blue was only described as "turqoise" the [https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:2583286$12i "1906 Presidential Decree of April 24"] depicts the flag with a dark shade instead of the light shade you have described.

::::::::::I understand that you also believe that it better illustrates the different eras for Cuba but this isn't a historical basis to change the flag and there isn't any clear evidence at this point to make that change. Blackfalcon501 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::Also a note: this might also be not a "real change", i.e. an "adjustment" which is not really written anywhere as part of a redesign. But newer flags maybe just were made what people thought were darker blue, for example. This sometimes happens with flag "changes" with regards to small details like colour shades. --Havsjö (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This article compiles info about multiple different governments in Cuba from 1902-1959 and compiles it under the title of one government the "Republic of Cuba". Should we have the article be renamed to reflect how this is a period of history not a single government. Should the info on the separate governments be split into different articles?Mangokeylime (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel Alexander Solorzano banda 2806:107E:20:3238:FCEA:1A9D:BA67:2BE5 (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Cuba_%281902%E2%80%931959%29&oldid=prev&diff=1264066544 This edit] is inconsistent with MOS:IBP and MOS:SOB, presenting detail that currently doesn't exist in the article body and would be better discussed there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:It is mentioned in the article that there were two authoritarian dictatorships during the years of the Republic of Cuba so they should be in the government infobox ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::The existing listing is sufficient for the at-a-glance, with details to be discussed in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::At least add mention of Gerardo Machado's authoritarian rule ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Wait, how is what was originally there overdetail? It's about the same except with mention of Gerardo Machado's dictatorship. Plus the formatting was better the way it was before. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Shifting content sideways does not make the formatting better. Please stop re-adding this until you've gained consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::The formatting is less condensed that way. The way you have it now feels cramped and hard to read ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I just don't see why you refuse to allow the mention of the two authoritarian dictatorships during the time of the republic in the government infobox. The formatting you keep reintroducing is just frankly bad. It's crushed together, too brief, and ugly. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's supposed to be condensed and brief; that's literally the point of the template. If you find it hard to read, that suggests it needs to be streamlined, not expanded. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Well its not supposed to be so condensed that it makes it difficult to read pal ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If you find it difficult to read we should discuss how best to streamline it further. Do you have any suggestions? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yeah, how it was like before ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That would be the opposite of streamlining further. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::it would not be the opposite ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Adding detail would be the opposite of streamlining, yes. I've made some changes that will hopefully make it easier for you to read. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That did not help and I have promptly undone your edit because you for some reason decided to remove Unitary state in the government infobox. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I'm still not clear on why you think there should be information included here that is neither discussed nor sourced in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I do find it ridiculous that it is not mentioned at all in the article body Gerardo Machado’s authoritarian dictatorship. That should absolutely be mentioned (alongside in the government infobox). ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:As above, I'd suggest expanding the discussion of the form of government in the article text, rather than continuing to overburden the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think it would be fine to work on both, no? It is suprsing to me that nothing is mentioned of Machado's authoritarian dictatorship in the article at all. I don't think it would be my place to make such an addition though, I'm not very good at writing much. If someone else was willing to, please go right ahead. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Generally speaking there shouldn't be information in the template that isn't in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Which again, I think it should be added in the article especially ErickTheMerrick (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Nikkimaria, if it wouldn't be too much to ask, could you perhaps write more for the Machado Era section? Specifically mentioning Marchado's authoritarianism (with the sources provided in the edits before you reverted them). I ask you do it since you're more experienced on Wikipedia than I am. I fully understand if you don't want to and I'd probably do it myself. I just think I wouldn't really do a good job at summarizing his rule and that you'd probably be better suited for this. Thanks either way. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I can take a look at this later this week. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you! ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, why did you revert my edit? I thought we already resolved this issue. I'm just adding info that needa to be added. Its sourced so I don't see why you feel the need to revert this. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:As per the discussion above, the details should be in the article body rather than the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::And as per the discussion above, they should be in both. The dictatorship of Machado should also be on the government infobox as it was quite significant and is well sourced. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The discussion did not arrive at that consensus, and the proposed edit remains inconsistent with MOS:IBP and MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I was under the impression that it did, but I guess we're still on this issue. Great. It does not break MOS:IBP to mention a dictatorship and I could simply just leave some parts without links as to avoid breaking the oh so sacred MOS:SOB. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::We will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’m sorry, but no. This is an incredibly simple edit. It doesn't even take much space in the infobox. Its ridiculous that this is even an issue as its a pretty standard type of edit across country pages under dictatorships. If you refuse to allow the addition the Machado dictatorship, why mention the Batista one? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)