Talk:Bisexual flag

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Heraldry and vexillology

Bisexual flag 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.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

On 21 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Bisexual pride flag to Bisexual flag. The result of the discussion was moved.

Presented flag ratio

Is this meant to represent the amount of bisexuals in the population being a minority or something? If this were the case, then the heterosexual part of the flag should be bigger than the homosexual one to indicate their status as a majority as well. Actually, I think the majority of it should be purple and the top and bottom small. This does not indicate bisexual predominance, but rather it as a cutaway of a representation whose upper and lower limits need not be defined. Tyciol (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere it's meant to represent the fact that bisexuals lack visibility compared to homosexuals and heterosexuals, but I'm not sure it was what the original designers intended.

Masorick (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links at the bottom of the article are bs, and this flag is terrible, seriously, someone come up with a new flag, this just further stereotypes us, gays have the rainbow and we have THIS?!?!?! This article should be deleted...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.226.129 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for a certain portion

The paragraph "The deep...gender spectrum" needs citation. I was always told that the pink stood for people attracted to girls, the blue stood for people attracted to boys and the bi population was the purple, being attracted to either. I would add a citation needed but I don't remember how. 173.172.42.44 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company claiming to own the pride flag

This company is claiming to own the bi pride flag now, and is issuing orders to people to stop using them without paying them a license. Clearly a troll given that the bi pride flag is explicitly not trademarked. Some articles might pop up about this, at which point maybe it should be added to the article? --95.97.234.31 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it gains that much traction maybe it should. Also people should watch out for the company messing with the article to support their side. Lockeral (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are now requesting this page to be edited perhaps protecting it temporarily would be a good idea https://twitter.com/binetusa/status/1255563160800522240?s=21 2600:1700:7480:95F0:34DD:8811:8D70:B25E (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, is there a mechanism to nominate pages for temporary protection? This appears to be a growing shitstorm, and this org are now actively lobbying for people to edit this page to suit their legal ends. BlackholeWA (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackholeWA:: Yes, you can nominate pages on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. --Medici (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that editors not rush into requesting page protection. Admins will protect a page only if there is recent evidence of persistent or a high level of disruptive editing. That is not yet the case here. What we have seen today are strictly good-faith edits. NedFausa (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the Twitter account does seem affiliated with the website. A link can be reached through the binetusa.org page by following About Our Group (in the header menu) > Group Blogs > Binet blog archives 2009- . On that page exists a link to the twitter account in question. On the right sidebar under useful links. Hope this help. --StereoBucket (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help. Following your directions, I could not find the 2009 [!!!] archive. Why can't you just provide a direct hyperlink? NedFausa (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should've clarified that the menus are dropdown and you need to hover. Here is the link to their blog. BiNet USA's Blog .--StereoBucket (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other twitter accounts that have emerged in the mean time : 1 and 2. So I think we should be careful what goes on this wikipedia page. Nattes à chat (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for the page to be protected.Nattes à chat (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"RealBiNetUSA" is a parody, and "binetusa3" are quite obviously not the original BiNet USA. As for page protection, I think it is probably unnecessary right now. I removed some non-neutral material earlier, and I'll keep an eye on the page. If more vandalism occurs, then page protetion might be justified, but I don't think it now is needed. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is now brewing with one user twice editing in the opinionated, inappropriate phrase "inaccurate and shameful" to describe BiNet USA's actions. That is the current state of the page. I don't want to perpetuate edit warring, can someone step in and ask the user to come discuss their edits? Thanks. 195.213.1.12 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 17:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual pride flag → Bisexual flag – In aiming to have a naming convention for all pride flags, as well as in the aim of WP:CONCISE, the "pride" should be removed from the name. See lesbian flag, transgender flag, etc. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 13:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Naming makes sense. See also rainbow flag (LGBT). SWinxy (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable.--RedHillian | Talk 19:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hex Colors/ wrong image?

The article states the colors used in the flag are best approximated by HTML values #D8097E, #8C579C, #24468E; however, when I take color samples from the flag used as the article image, I get #D70071, #9C4E97, #0035A9. Anyone know what's going on here? Do we need to update the image or the hex codes in the article? LucasThree (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So because there are a range of values that correspond to each PMS number (which were the only values given by the designer), the Wikipedia article cites one "translation" of the PMS to hexcode, while the image reflects another. I would say, just by searching around, that the colors used by the image are more ubiquitous. I don't think it's an issue since there will naturally be a group of extremely similar colors that all work fine. I'll remove the HTML values from the article since there aren't any values that are "official". ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]