Talk:International Code of Signals

Reference 1 is broken

The link for reference 1 seems to point to someplace specific, but when I click it I simply find myself on the nga.mil homepage. Paul Koning (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The government seems to change its link every few months. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision?

I would like to see some revision of this article. Currently it is pretty much just a section on history, and a somewhat overwhelming illustration of examples. I think it would be a substantial improvement to illustrate the complete set of signal flags. Also, while some examples would be good, I think the existing illustration needs to be revised. The extent of the code should also be touched on (e.g., there is a whole section dealing just with medical treatment), and that the ICS is not just a flag code, but suitable for multiple methods of signalling. Anyone have any feelings or comments about this? - J. Johnson (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, although I do not know the flags (my expertise is with the letters and code words of the NATO phonetic alphabet). — Joe Kress (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"XGE"

I am removing the mention of the "XGE" signal at the Battle of Tsushima. This is a popular factoid that has been replicated all over the Web, but seems to ultimately derive from a single reference ("The Guiness Book of Decisive Battles") cited in the Wikipedia article. I have found another account (Ronald Andidora, "Iron Admirals: Naval Leadership in the Twentieth Century") that puts a rather different spin on the matter. Either way, I do not see that this factoid contributes to the article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re image

Regarding the newly added image of a "flag rack", I would ask: how does this contribute to the article? It is not even clear just what the picture depicts, and its relevance to the topic seems exceedingly thin. Would there be any objection to removing it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It can contribute by showing, in a real world example, how the flags were used aboard a war vessel. It could be improved, referred to in the prose and perhaps the label improved a bit. --RadioFan (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If the image actually showed "how the flags were used aboard a war vessel" then it might be useful, but more appropriately in the article on Naval flag signalling. (I am somewhat particular on making the naval/merchant distinction on account of so many people confounding that.) Contrast this with the image of the signal bridge at International maritime signal flags. Although it also does not show how the flags are used, it does better show the pigeon holes where they are stored. The image here does not clearly show that. Sure, I, and I presume you also, recognize the slots, but that is because we already know what to see. Most anyone else will see only unrecognizable shapes. The image really does not convey any meaning (except battleship gray). It certainly does not show how the flags are used. Take a look at the "Flag Signalling at Sea" article by Barrie Kent (see Flaghoist signalling), and it may be clearer at what I mean. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As there appears to be no substantial objection I will be taking the image out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, anyone deeply interested in the details of how naval signaling is done (at least in the U.S. Navy) should check the Signalman training manual available at www.gobalsecrity.org. Hard core gory details! But Flag Signalling at Sea is rather more interesting for most of us. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Full list of all the codes

For a full list of all the codes see INTERNATIONAL CODE OF SIGNALS FOR VISUAL, SOUND, AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS UNITED STATES EDITION 1969 Edition(Revised 2003). This is a U.S. government document in the public domain, but the uploader shoved it into scribd rather than putting it on Wikisource, so now someone is either going to have to hold their nose and sign up for that site or else spend time digging into their HTML source until they get to some text that can be copied from more than one page (or just copy and paste a hundred times). But once you fish it out you have the basis of a full table. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It is quite unclear (to me) what you're talking about. The U.S. 1969 edition (as full a list of "all the codes" as one could want) is still available as a public domain pdf at www.nga.mil (referenced in the article), quite independently of whatever is on Scribd. I have no idea of why you seem to think there is a need to dig into HTML source. or what kind of "full table" you have in mind. Perhaps you could clarify this? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean, the full list of what all the two-letter codes (and longer codes) mean. I'm not familiar with the topic, but is 1969's version really unchanged in the 2003 publication? Wnt (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I think understand. But lets start with your second question (is the 2003 version unchanged?). First, understand that an affirmative answer could be proven by showing a single instance of a change, while a negative answer requires that no such instance exists, which would be quite difficult. But as to my belief that there as been no substantial change: I have personally (and briefly, while standing in the store) perused a print copy of the 2003 edition, and found no such changes (and I am familiar with the 1969 edition). Also, I saw no statements re substantial changes, which would be reasonable to expect (but not guaranteed) if such changes existed. Now if that is deemed not quite adequate, there is another recourse: buy a copy of the new edition and compare them. Okay, that is a little pricey. Alternate is to get the on-line (see External links) version of the 2003 Spanish edition. Although the formating changed, I believe the material is similar enough that even in the different language a side-by-side comparison can be made. (Do we have a volunteer? :-)

Back to your interest in providing a "full list of .. all the two-letter codes". With diffidence I would ask: have you seen the Code? The "two-letter" codes (signals) alone are quite extensive, and really of little interest to most anyone outside of the maritime trade. Also, "the Code" (the ISC) itself is more than just the various signals themselves. To cover all of this would be to effectively republish the ISC. Now a prior editor did list some of the two-letter codes, but I moved them to the end of the article because, as you can see, they tend to overwhelm the article. Anyone that is interested is directed to the Code itself, which is readily available (not from Scribd, but from NGA). For encyclopediac purposes we need to consider the general readers, for whom the limited number of examples provided are, I believe, probably quite adequate. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet the list wouldn't look all that long as a Wikitable. But a separate list article would be warranted. The whole book should really be at wikisource. To be honest, I was just thinking about a cute set of signature flags for Wikipedia. Bravo when the editor is eating, alfa when he's in the middle of a big edit, mike alfa alfa when he needs an admin, and of course delta for editing while drunk (numerical BAC is optional). Five to one I never get around to it though. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Phooey. I just started actually thinking about it and ran into some policy I'd never heard of. That pretty much kills the real-time signature flag idea. Wnt (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, I did make this template (two letters only so far...): User:Wnt/Templates/Flags Wnt (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Trust me, a table of "all" the codes would be pretty long, even without flag graphics. (Download the book and look!) As to using the flags for status codes – fine, but that would be beyond the ICS. There are codes in the ICS for such things as requesting assistance, etc. But as Wikipedia is not a context where the Code is used – where no one expects such signals, and practically no one would recognize them – any such use would be decorative. Though I could see one exception: the diver down flag. Meaning: someone working here, stand clear! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect illustration

In the illustrated Examples section, the flags for code 'MAA' are shown as Mike, Alpha, Alpha. They should be Mike, Alpha, Second Sub as stated further up the page under the heading 'Signals'. The latter refers to the erroneous illustration! I would have corrected it myself but I couldn't find a link to the second sub flag.

Also the example illustrations should have white space between the flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFenna (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Not certain what you mean by "the latter refers to....." Other than that, yes, MAA is incorrect. In regards of presentation, again yes, some white space is necessary to separate the images. Possibly this could done by tweaking the table coding. If you are interested, copy that section over to your Sandbox page and play around with it; it could be a satisfying little project.

  I think a bigger problem is that the flag images used do not have outlines, so any white areas blend with the page, making the rest look like some high-tech bar-code. You could look for a better set of images. Alternately, you could try to persuade me into doing a mass upload to WikiCommons of the set of images I created. But I have never felt that this particular problem was very important, compared to all the other work that ought to be done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"the interested reader is urged to download a copy of the Code from the link below."

That link is not merely obscure, it's dead. And then there's unencyclopaedic. Somebody fix please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.113.82 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The link has been replaced. For future reference note that it is sufficient to identify dead links with {{dead link}} template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

PaulinSaudi: you did some de-capitalization, and I re-capitalized "Code" where that is a proper name referring specifically to the International Code of Signals. Which you have now reverted, with a nod to the MOS. If you think proper names should not be capitalized please provide a link to the specific language of the MOS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, J. Proper nouns are set with initial caps. Examples would be "Morse Code" or "United States Penal Code." Common nouns are not set with a capital when they talk about things that have a proper noun. ("Marines" is not capitalized when it is talking about the United States Marine Corps.) In the same way "code" is not capitalized in standard English when using the word as a short form for a proper noun. In truth, we simply tend to capitalized too much in English nowadays and I have gone into Grandpa Simpson mode in my resistance to the trend. Kindly note the discussion of the Specialist Style Fallacy which points out that just because technical or speciality publication used a certain style, that does not make their usage correct in the rest of the language. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And good evening to you. Your argument sounds reasonable, but I am not entirely convinced. In your edit summary you referred to the MOS, but in a quick glance there I did not see any thing applicable. Could you provide a link, perhaps the relevant text? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters. Please provide a link to justify re-capitalizing "Code". --Elvey (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you. This is just harassment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What is harassment? Who were you not asking? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not asking Elvey. He has undertaken a campaign to show that I don't play well with other editors, and will likely be disappointed if we don't start yelling at each, edit-warring on the reverts, etc.

  Like I said before, I am not entirely convinced. But I will accept it if you can link to specific language in the MOS. I looked into CMOS-13 last night, and I admit it does seem to lean your way, though with exceptions. (E.g.: the Court, for the U.S. Supreme Court.) I rather suspect this is currently evolving, and that CMOS-16 might be more supportive of capitalization, but I don't have a copy of that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is an exception for the king, but only when king is short for "Good King John," or whoever. That is to say, "the President left the White House," but "he wanted to be president." In my mind, I call it the "Royal Exception." "Code" as short for the US Criminal Code is often set with a capital in legal writing. Legal writing is, we can all agree, gibberish. In any case, we ought to be sparing in our use of capitals. Elsewise, we will beset with Governors, Marines, Airmen and even Doctors, causing (me at least) to cough up a furball when reading for meaning. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  I understand. But it seems to me that you do not have a basis for this in the Wikipedia MOS, and you erred in citing the MOS. Nonetheless, it's not that big of a deal for me, and if you want it so just out of personal preference, fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the MOS tells us when to capitalize, not when not to. The default position is to not capitalize common nouns, like, "code." But in any case, we can leave it like it is. If there is a mistake, it is a minor one. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that (as far as I have seen) it doesn't cover this particular point. But which ever way is "right", I agree with you it's minor. And there is plenty enough other stuff to fix. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tables for Letter and Number Flags

In the Talk:International_maritime_signal_flags page, there is a discussion of revisions to the display of the letter flags, and addition of number flags on that International maritime signal flags page. In that discussion, there has been encouragement to add those tables to this page as well. Please see the discussion there (or add to this section) if you wish to influence these proposed changes.

Joe is doing up a table of the ICS single-flag signals and their meanings, which I think would be a nice addition here. I suggest right before the former "Examples" section, which I have just renamed "Examples of multiple-flag signals". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick info on latitude and longitude

I didn't check any references, but I highly suspect that the "Meaning when used with Numeric Complements" in the "Single-flag signals" table for the Golf and Lima flags could be wrong. There are 60 minutes in a degree (and 60 seconds in a minute) so only two flags would be necessary for that, while longitude could be up to 180 degrees east or west, requiring three flags (latitude only goes up to 90 degrees north or south and doesn't need that third flag either). The words degree and minute may have been reversed in those blocks.

MorelandBE (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It does seem reasonable that degrees would be specified before minutes. But always check the source. And if that confirms your hunch feel free to correct the text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On sources

@Stringybark: Interesting material you have added, However, please conform to the existing style here of putting the full citation of the source into the "Sources" section, and then linking via a {{Harvnb}} template. Ask if you need assistance.

On a related matter, adding the same material to Maritime flag signalling is redundant, and more detail than warranted at that point; I suggest removing that. What we should have (and I don't know why I have been so remiss not to do it before) is a {{main}} template there pointing folks back to this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As the sources I cited are newspaper articles without an author, I am not sure how the Harvard style of author-year in parentheses, suited to inline citations in scientific work, would apply here. It is a rather difficult system to use for historical scholarship that cites primary records. But perhaps you have in mind that 'Notes' would cite as "Mercury 1933" and either "Sydney Morning Herald 1901" or "SMH 1901"; and then in 'Sources' I would provide the references much as they appear now?

On your second point, the article Maritime flag signalling is already highly redundant with International_Code_of_Signals; if the former has any History subsection at all, it ought to at least indicate that that the signalling system had two main revisions to international statutes on firm dates (1/1/1901, 1/1/1934), otherwise people landing there without being aware of or bothering to go to the article International_Code_of_Signals will not learn of these essential changes to the code. That's why I felt forced to add the same content in both articles. Inelegant, but the precedent is already there - the two articles cover much the same ground. What if the whole History section of Maritime flag signalling is taken out and spliced into the History section of the current article, with a pointer? I don't see the value in having a bits-and-pieces historical section that talks a lot but omits the critical statutory facts. Stringybark (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I often think that the {{Harv}} templates are unfortunately named, as many editors then conflate them with Harvard referencing, aka "parenthetical" or "author-date" referencing. Which {Harv} does fine, but they are not limited to those styles. And here I point out that author-date referencing (not necessarily parenthetical!) is just as suitable in non-scientific fields. The problem is, of course, where an identified author is lacking, such as with many newspaper articles. The solution is as you have suspected: use the name of the paper. For the short cite in the text use something like {{Harvnb|Sydney Morning Herald|1901}}. Because this creates a non-standard CITEREF so you have to add something like |ref=CITEREFSydney Morning Herald1901 (note the "missing" spaces!) to the cite/citation template. Try it out. If it doesn't quite work I'll fix it for you.

By the by, while the history of the ICS' development is interesting, I find popular media such as newspapers generally really low-grade sources for documenting technical standards. I have it in mind that I once saw some better sources. If you have an abiding interest in the ICS you might want seek them out.

On the second point: generally speaking, there should be no substantial redundancy, and certainly not to the extent of duplicated text. Material should be placed in the single best topic. Maritime flag signalling – parallel to Naval flag signalling – is to some extent a subset of the ICS, as flag signalling is just one mode of signalling under the ICS. But on the otherhand, it covers more than the ICS, so it is a superset. In this regard that article does only an overview of the ICS, just as it does with Marryat's Code of Signals, and with comparable coverage. That the topic of the ICS is so much bigger is why it has its own article, and the section on the ICS at Maritime flag signalling should not recapitulate the fuller details available here. Persuaded? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

On restoring the ICS graphic

I disagree with your last change (replacing the graphic of the ICS flags with a picture of a flag locker), and your rationale. The illustration of the flags themselves goes right to what the topic is, but a poorly organized picture of the Jeremiah O'Brien's "flag locker" (a rather grand term for some shelving) shows the reader 'nothing of interest: it is totally uninformative. (Indeed, the most striking feature of that picture is some kind of electrical panel.) Regardless of anything else, that picture is worthless, has no purpose here, and no place.

You object that "a table of all flags is unnecessary as they appear below in the table". If it was a simple matter of duplication then we might remove the second instance. But it is not a mere matter of duplication: the graphic clearly, succinctly, and authoritatively illustrates the flags and their names. On the other hand, the table under "Single-flag signals" is about the meaning or use of the flags, and is organized to present the meanings of individual flags. While it incorporates the same information as the graphic, that is more as an index to the meanings; it does not provide the "whole set of ICS flags at a glance" view.

Do not undervalue the authority of the graphic. It is taken straight from an authoritative (and public) source, and not easily altered by a Wikipedia editor. On the otherhand, the table is entirely the creation of WP editors, and subject to all the usual problems. In particular: it is a perennial problem where fly-by editors "correct" the spelling of "Alfa". The graphic is immune from this, and is a right-handy reference when people insist on mucking up the spelling in the table.

For these reasons I hope you will agree to restoring the graphic, which I will be doing shortly.

I have some criticism regarding which flag images should be used. Particularly, the images you used do not have a clear border, so flags with white are mis-presented against a white background. (E.g., Hotel comes across as a vertical red bar.) For a long while I have wanted to have a broad discussion on a better representation of these flags, but unfortunately it has not been a high priority. And I don't have enough time now to discuss the details here, but perhaps we can come back to this another time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also reverted your removal of "elegant". You might object to that being laudatory, but that doesn't make something non-neutral. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

P.P.S Sorry, I didn't notice what you did with the substitute flags. I'm okay with that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

My only real disagreement with you (now that you've explained the issue with the picture) is that small NPOV bit. Praising something does not immediately make the content non-neutral. However, it is usually better avoided. For example, even Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, who is pretty much uncontroversially acclaimed as the 'Hero of Trafalgar' and a naval genius, has the word (or related words like heroic) "hero" appear only 6 times in his article, most of the time not even applying directly to him (rather, some bland expression's like "a hero's welcome"). Also, WP:NPOV clearly states "• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)," Although I am not one that tends to interpret the rules like a lawyer, I think this is quite clear and that the term "elegant" is not necessary to get the point across (i.e., that the ICS is practical as a tool of communication at sea because the code book is available in many different languages). I thus prefer my own version, since it avoids introducing unnecessary editorializing.

Regarding the picture, what I was really trying to find is something that shows an actual usage of the flags. The 2nd picture here might do a better job, but for the fact that it's not ICS flags which are used (the numerals square flags are NATO flags). As such, I settled for the (agreed, "generous use of the term") flag locker image since it showed at least some kind of information relating to flag usage (that is, how they are stored when not in use). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the flag pictures, here is something a bit better, though unsure about copyright: [1] (taken from this page). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Also this (showing (unsure for the first flag) MWSM flying starboard and a mostly unrecognizable signal (D7 is my best guess) starboard) and this, with (in order they are seen) Hotel, (unknown), NCOM (ship callsign, I guess). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) And a final one, best in my opinion: this shows warships docked, showing usage of flag Bravo. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a big point with me, so if you want to leave out "elegant" on the basis of being "judgmental", fine.

But as long as we're here... I would point out that (and my apologies if I'm a little fast and loose with this, as I don't really have the time to fine-tune) it is quite unfortunate that "judgmental" has come (since the 1960s, I believe) to be taken as bad. Similar to how "criticism" has, for many people, come to mean "negative". To not judge is essentialy to take position that something doesn't matter. To be neutral is, to a certain extent, to not take a side. Which sounds quite similar, but take another look at WP:NPOV: it means representing different postions proportionately, according their relative prominence. It does not mean no critical viewpoints or judgments; it means we follow the predominant viewpoint.

We could probably have a long and deep discussion on this, but I don't expect to have enough time to do it justice till around November.

Regarding pictures: Your first one is indeed good, even excellent: the signal flags are not merely prominent, they are the center of attention; the flags are individually identifiable; and there is some context. However, copyright (or perhaps more precisely: copyleft?) is essential. We are not allowed to cut corners on that. U.S. Navy photos are exempt from copyright, but I don't know about the Canadian or Royal Navies. Photos from most websites are problematical. Even if they claim "public domain", that's not always true. Sometimes the easiest way to get a picture is to take one yourself.

As to "actual use of the flags": the use of the flags is the actual display ("flying") of them. Not how they are stored, or how they are bent onto a line. That is entirely incidental to their use. Perhaps in an article on signal flags ("here is where they are stored"), but keep in mind: this article is NOT about the flags. (Truly.) It is about the code which uses the flags. Or uses signal lamps, flag semaphore, radiotelegraphy, radiotelephony, or even blasts of a ship's horn. We are heavy into the flags only because of the various methods flags are the most photogenic. (Though if someone did an "audio book" of this article I suppose they could replace the flag graphics with blasts of a horn. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally incidental but I think I found something: here. The video is available in decent quality so it would be possible to take a screenshot and crop out the "non-interesting" part to focus on the mast+signals (at about 0m30s). Can you do that? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No. I don't have any video capabilities. But also: youtube? Better check on copyright, first. I would suggest scanning the Navy files first. I'd do it myself, but have a bit of a crisis elsewhere I have to deal with. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That video appears on the US Navy website, if you want to check, so the copyright is ok. Also, looking at the whole video and not just that initially interesting moment, there's an even better view of signals at 2m30s. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said: I am not set up to do any kind of video. I could crop and tweak a still, if you can grab one that looks good. Assuming we get far enough to upload something: do you know how to specify a USN license? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Here for the license. The images here might be a start. Otherwise your best bet is to Google "how to take a screenshot". 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ratio

Is there an official source document about the exact official ratio of the flags ? It seems that we can find square and rectangular versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.25.89 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. Somewhere I have a U.S. Navy document on the proportions, but that might be just the USN. I have noticed the Royal Navy flags seem slightly longer (less square), so perhaps they have their own version. The ISC doesn't seem to specify, though perhaps at some distant time in the past there might have been some guidance on that. If you can ferret out anything on that, by all means tell us!

Some years ago I created a mostly complete set of flag images scaled by what I actually measured, and was thinking of uploading to WikiCommons as an alternative. But I think an alternative set of images should be done on explicit (and identified) ISC standards, not just how the USN does it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Flags of the World" site contains information of some sizes, gathered by the website's author(s) from various sources, but none of them seems normative.
Link: https://www.fotw.info/flags/xf-ics.html --CiaPan (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation style

@PetesGuide: When adding content please use, per WP:CITEVAR, the citation style previously established in this article. The style for this article uses:

• {{Harv}} family of templates for the in-line citation (between the <ref>...</ref> tags in the text),
• {{Citation}} templates (not "cite", etc.) for the full citations, with the
• full citations collected in the "Sources" (or "References") section.

Ask if you need assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@PetesGuide: As you seemed to have forgotten this note from last October, I am going to just revert your recent edits in the Sources section. If you wish to add new (and pertinent?) sources, please conform to the pertinent style, which is the use of citation templates, with full bibliographic details. Also, please place them in the proper location (not simply dropped in at the top of the section). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Sorry about that; I had indeed forgotten. When I looked into it, I found this citation method confusing. Can you walk me through an example of adding a new citation using CITEVAR?PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 00:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. First, note that WP:CITEVAR is not a method of citation; it a policy that the addition of citations in an article must be consistent with the established usage. Which here is with the full citations in what we call "CS2" style (implmented by means of the {{Citation}} template), collected in the Sources section.

For now (I'm about out of time for today) look at the other sources to see how they were done. You might find it convenient to create an empty template as master form, to which you can add the specific details. Do try to get the fullest possible bibliographic details to aid in finding and identifying each source. (Check related articles to see if they use any of those sources.)

Note that I might question some of your sources, but it will still be good practice to put them into template form. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• How's that addition? Is this format all about using the Harvard notation, or is there a deeper issue relating to the structure of the article and citations? I'm particularly confused that there are three uses of {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) in the article, when your statements seem to indicate that's not consistent with the style of this article. What's different about these three? Also, why is the section heading above the reflist template called "Notes" instead of "References"? Those answers may help my understanding of how this system of references works.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 02:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Also, if I've done the formatting wrong, can you clean it up instead of reverting? I'd learn more from your improvements than otherwise.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You're making a mess. Please hold off from any further changes until I can give you a detailed comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that to have a good working relationship here you need to take some responsibility for learning how to do things, and not expect me to make everything right for you. I strongly suggest that you make only a few edits at a time, so that they can be perfected before getting deeper into things.

Regarding your questions. "References", though widely used, is an unfortunately ambiguous term that leads to confusion of understanding. "Notes" and "Sources" more more specifically describe what each section contains, such as the "notes" for the text (variously known as "footnotes" or "endnotes"), containing (among other possibilities) the in-line citations that a link specific text to a source. Similarly, "Sources" is a list of the sources on which the text is based. More precisely, it is a list of full citations that describe each source. Each full citation (one per source) provides the bibliographic details that identify the source. At a mininum this should include the name of the author(s), the title, and year of publication, and any other data useful in locating the source.

When I suggested you look at the existing citations I forgot that they were mostly institutional documents lacking identified authors, so that we use the document title instead. Maritime flag signalling would be a better example to study, in that it has several more typical citations. But note! That article has full citations mixed in with the notes, and other failings, which should not be emulated.

As to the sources you want to bring in here: your "A guide to codes and signals" is by Peterson and McClintock, and they should be included in the citation (try "|first1= Gordon |last1= Petersen" "|first2= Marshal |last2= McClintock"). Similarly for "Telegraphic signals": that is the classic work by Popham, and he should be fully cited as the author. (E.g., see note #4 at Maritime flag signalling.)

I am going to reset to the original version. It would be a great saving of time and effort for both of us (and less vexatious) if you would do just a few edits at a time. For now please work on getting the full citations right. When you learn how to do those we can proceed to the the other matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@PetesGuide: You should review the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (WP:BRD). Please take a break from this discussion, and review WP:BRD now.

The batch of Bold edits you have done here have various problems, starting with citation style (which I addressed earlier). I have not yet mentioned the various other problems, to avoid overwhelming you with criticism. But you do need to recognize that my Reversion of all your edits should put on notice that they ALL are questioned, and that the next step should be Discussion. NOT re-adding them.

So I am going to revert your edits, again. And suggest we have a Discussion, here, not a slow-motion edit war. I suggest an incremental approach (rather than trying to tackle everything all at once). We can continue with the citation issues (above), or the general structure of the article, or any other aspect. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Charlie as a numerical compliment

Currently the article has a note for Charlie as a numerical compliment: "Course in degrees magnetic".

However, reading through International Code of Signals for Visual, Sound, and Radio Communications, United States Edition, 1969 (Revised 2003) (PDF), 1969

I see on page 7:

"Course 7. Course is to be expressed in three numerals denoting degrees from 000 to 359, measured clockwise. If there is any possibility of confusion, they should be preceded by the letter “C”. They are always to be true unless expressly stated to be otherwise in the context."

I don't have any other special knowledge or experience to confirm if my understanding of this reference is correct tho. Should I update this note to be "True course" instead of "Course in degrees magnetic"? Or is there another source saying that this should indeed be a magnetic course? Donutsonhudson (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Donutsonhudson: The suspicious statement has been added with the whole table by JoeDeRose in this edit: Special:Diff/604089813 on 14 April 2014 and it remains unchanged since then. I too could not find any source in the Web to support it, and I think you're right that it should be changed to 'true course'. --CiaPan (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my contribution on this page was to copy the table of flags from the International maritime signal flags page, where I had done some work on the source table -- but my work there was only in the formatting and organization of the content (e.g., gray background against flags so shapes with white backgrounds would be visible). I didn't edit the content at all, just the formatting. If my investigation is correct, the content for "Charlie" about degrees magnetic was added by Denelson83 on the International maritime signal flags page here: [[2]]. Regarding the topic in this section, I don't have any knowledge about what strategy is proper, and I don't have any objection if it changes. | JoeDeRose (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)