User talk:Fry1989/Archive1
User talk:Fry1989/Archive2

Thank you[edit]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	DevinCook (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award[edit]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		awarded in recognition of tireless and often thankless street sign scholarship Cramyourspam (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your eloquent input on the Canada talk page; on the mark as always. Looks like deletionists aren't just a problem on the Commons, unfortunately. Thanks again! – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions ↓↓↓[edit]

Hi, The documentation for Template:Infobox military unit specifies that the allegiance field is to be "used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise". As such, it's not suitable to use it in this context. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: well, the articles for many of Her Majesty's other armed forces around the world appear to not follow that policy. Several republican articles also appear not to, such as the USAF bearing allegiance to the American Constitution, the Bangladeshi Air Force bearing allegiance to the People's Republic, and several others. I would suggest the interpretation of what the allegiance section is for is ambiguous. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have tagged the image I have uploaded as a candidate to be moved to Commons. However, I have uploaded it as a fair-use non-free image. It can't be accepted onto Commons under that license.

I followed the example of zh.wikipedia in determining the copyright status. However, it might pass Template:PD-PRC-exempt (cf. File:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg) - I don't have the expertise to determine this. The issue of license should be resolved before moving to Commons is possible. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, File:中国人民政治协商会议.png already exists under the license I've described. I have updated the license of File:Charter of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) logo.svg accordingly to give it an all-clear for Commons. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, don't change National Emblem of Belarus in any articles, please. This is very impertinently to change it in Belorussian Wikipedia firstly and secondly I'm a citizen of this country and I can reassure you this emblem is legal now from 2012. --Einimi (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Einimi, if you do not provide a proper source for your change in image, I will have to request your changes be reverted by an administrator. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided. There is an official site page in the article about the emblem. You can watch it. And I have a counter request: why did you changed it in ALL Wikipedias? If you don't agree here so change it here, but not in others. --Einimi (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted you Blue Ensign for RMS Queen Mary 2 to the undefaced Red Ensign. She is a Royal Mail Ship but the Blue Ensign is flown only when a member of the Royal Navy Reserve is her master. Presently, the only Cunard captain who has this Blue Ensign privilege is Christopher Wells and therefore it flies only when he is in command of the vessel. When Captain Kevin Oprey or Commodore Christopher Rynd are in command the Red Ensign is flown. Blue Riband► 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Namibian Navy Flag.jpg - Erm? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason to believe it is non-free? I disagree. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Director seems to think he can continually revert edits angrily with no regard for consensus and the widespread use of some of his images (see: his Nazi-related insignia); how should we best handle this? I've been going around protecting most of the things he tries to damage from edits for the past few months, such as Template:Nazism and it's sidebar. DasReichenz (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, firstly, this is a (very obvious) sock of Dannis243, who's been pushing for Nazi Party symbols in the sidebar for ages. Secondly, I mean - just look at the talkpage. Not only is Dannnis234/DasReichenz ignoring it, and just pushing his change through edit-warring, and that over and over again across months - but he's going against apparent consensus. -- Director (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Barneyuj4 is another sock of User:Barneyuj5 can you add him to the investigation page? – Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I think, State emblem of Pakistan is not in original color. You must check the color of coat of arms on the official interior ministry, defense ministry websites of Pakistan. Official colour is not #014102. Rather it is #00611c. Color is not dark green, it is light green or parrot-like. Please review it again and make correction in file. Thanks! --Asadwarraich (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the national flag that I have seen are significantly darker and I have changed the coat of arms to match. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a civil engineering student. Some construction tenders that I saw a few days ago were also comprising of parrot color like coat of arms. Also, an advertisement on the newspaper by Ministry of Interior shows it to be parrot like color, not solid green. Why don't you give me some sources regarding darkness of coat of arms?--Asadwarraich (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official passport of Pakistan also shows the coat of arms to be parrot like color and it is different from your version of coat of arms at Wikipedia. Here are references:

1. Ref. 1
2. Ref. 2 This reference is from latest passport.--Asadwarraich (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not replied me since 20 days. :) --Asadwarraich (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry about this. I was the one who edited the Flag of Mongolia page. I saw later that you undid this. I did not realise I had done anything wrong, but I am sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

Could you please tell me what I did wrong, or why you undid the edit? If it is something I did, then I would like to not do it again. You can help me with this by telling me what I did wrong.

Thank you, for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw0391 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ughhhh... I'm an idiot, sorry. I forgot a subject/headline. So sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw0391 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw0391:, the two files appear to be the same. If there is a new change you have made, you should upload it onto File:Flag of Mongolia.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: They are certainly similar, but I noticed that the outline around the yin-yang symbol was made by a 'line', and not a 'shape', if you will. With the image as it was, if you resized it in a vector program, the line would still want to be at the same width, and would just get thicker as the image decreased in size (the inverse is also true). So, I made the outline a shape, and if it is resized it will remain at the same size (proportionate to the rest of the image), because it is not a line, but a shape.

Also, I did not realise that you could upload an image over someone else's. I will learn more about this, and try to do it later. Otherwise, I hope this adequately explains my actions. I'm sorry to get you this far involved. I don't mean to bother other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw0391 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw0391:, no need to apologise :) If anything I should apologise for my late resposne leaving you hanging. Most files on Commons can be uploaded over and improved, unless they are protected. I don't see File:Flag of Mongolia.svg protected so you should have no problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989:Thanks. I will try this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw0391 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the page is almost a gallery of photos. I was wondering if that should be cut down or trimmed. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterysteppe:, sadly I don't think Wikipedia has a very good way of displaying road signs in articles this way. But there are a lot of road signs articles for different countries and they all face this problem. I agree that displaying 500 signs on an article isn't ideal. Right now I'm working on uploading the signs on Commons, an IP user has been adding them to the article. If you want to trim things down a bit, I would not object. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: I saw that. I made a revert on that page because i saw that and thought it was ridiculous. It definitely felt like I went to Wikimedia Commons instead. I think it is good that you upload them to Commons. I support that. In regards to the article, Im thinking of trimming to the signs that are the most commonly seen signs, like stop signs, merge, one way, etc. I mean, not just that page, but all the pages. Is that fine? Winterysteppe (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterysteppe: sorry for a slow response. No I would not mind at all, we have to be practical. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fry1989. If Gibraltar COAs are PD then please convert the file from non-free to the appropriate free license. The file is unlikely to be moved to Commons and is going to keep being treated as non-free on Wikipedia as long as it's tagged with a non-free copyright tag. If you're not sure which copyright license to use, then you can ask at WP:FFD or WP:MCQ for assistance. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Fry1989. I've asked for opinions regarding the licensing of this and similar files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 4#Gibraltar coats of arms. Any information you can provide which might help clarify this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989, it would be helpful if you would link to any indication that Gibraltar coats of arms are public domain; lacking that, we have to treat them as fair use and they can't be moved to Commons. All the best, Miniapolis 00:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For your fixing the media on Road signs in the United States TheSpaceFace Let's Chat 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How kind. Thank you! Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Fry! I'm Gameiro from the Portuguese Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me with an image of a flag that is currently nonexistent in the community. It's the flag of the Portuguese Prime Minister, used from 1952 when it replaced this flag (File:Flag of Portuguese Minister.svg) and 1972, when it was replaced by this one (File:Flag of Portuguese Prime-Minister.svg). The flag was almost identical to the one used by the Minister of Defense (File:Flag of Defense Minister.png), the exception being that instead of the dragons, it used the 5 blue besants of the Portuguese shield, in a white background, just like in the image of page 1 of this offical decree: https://dre.pt/application/file/671697. Do you think you could help me by doing it? Using the flag of the Minister of Defense as a start, it shouldn't be that hard, I think. Thanks! Gameiro (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try working on it. Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gameiro:, here we go. I apologise for the delay. File:Flag of the Prime Minister of Portugal (1952-1972).svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! Thank you! They turned out great. And no worries about the time, these things take time. Best! Gameiro (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Comparison of European road signs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I am sorry that I have to file this despite other hope. Neverthelees you seem to be unreasonable. Well, let's if we come to a solution this way. ZH8000 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only person being unreasonable is yourself. It is very obvious you are putting signs in the wrong tables. File:CH-Hinweissignal-Vorwegweiser bei Kreisverkehrsplatz.svg IS NOT a warning sign, it is an indication sign. It's that simple! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fry can you rename this file, to included "Kingdom of Samoa 1873 – 1900" in the file name - many thanks in advance FOX 52 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The directional signs with red rim, that you keep removing are abundantly used. Also they are shown on government websites as current signs. Please stop removing them from the list. They are not "former"signs. −Woodstone (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this reference earlier on. −Woodstone (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have several Thai documents showing that they have been replaced by Type A. Just because many of the Type B signs are still around doesn't mean they are still official. Road signs are usually left where they are until they deteriorate and need replacing. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen people being fined while caught violating one of the old model signs. So they must have power of law. Anyway, as mentioned above, WP should reflect reality, not abstraction. The signs are on the streets, so they should be in the list. I would not object to a footnote designating them as obsolescent. −Woodstone (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded and added the signs back to the article. Is this better? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the images and adding them back (plus a few extra, but two still missing). However now they are hidden in a distant corner of the article. They are common enough on the streets to merit a first rank placement. Unless you can show a reference that explicitly says they are obsolescent, they should be moved to their proper place next to the alternative international blue signs. −Woodstone (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent documents show these signs only in the blue version. Older documents show the red version. I can send these documents to you for comparison if you would like. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter much if the red rim signs are in recent documents, which are meant for future signage. The fact is that these signs are present and enforced. I remember vividly my confusion at these signs when I first arrived to live in Thailand. We should support readers to understand reality of signage actually on the streets. As said before, a footnote might clarify their status. −Woodstone (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this, and quite dumb about mark-up and coding. Very dumb.
I thought I saw my that userbox on my user page distorted, so checked it and found you'd made a change, so I reverted it.
It's possible the distortion was some temporary internet glitch. I didn't think so at the time. What do you think?
Did you visit my sandbox? Or does a "universal change" automatically change everything wherever it is? YoPienso (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fine, do what ever you want. But if someone replaced a file on one of my pages which had been renamed, and especially considering since renames can cause problems with images properly appearing, I'd thank them instead of being obstinate. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was politely asking you to inform my ignorance. YoPienso (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see those flag maps on many of the articles on "Same Sex Marriage in X". Do you have any information that they are actually used in each of those countries, or is it a creation of yours?Naraht (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few maps already like that on Commons. I just made the rest of them. They are purely a creation for Commons, they are not used in those countries in any official manner. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of them are on articles on Wikipedia itself, do you support that?Naraht (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion here you might be interested in. Basically it's a debate on which audio file is better. A modern professional one or one from 111 years ago. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Comparison of European road signs‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
No, we did not discuss this issue. Please tell me, how should I – or anybod else – take you seriously if you are not even able to be sure about a such simple fact. ZH8000 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? We DISCUSSED THIS!. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just did replace '!' with '|' in several tables on Comparison of European road signs. I think this is not a good idea, since it removes the header style from these rows. What was your itention?? -- 19:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My intention was to fix the visual error with the country names. Compare before and after my edit. It was also inconsistent, notice Luxembourg not matching with the other country names. They should be uniform. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fry1989 (talk · contribs), I must admitt I do not see the problem. Yes, '!' changes the text to bold and greys the background. This is exactely the intention! Luxembourg is different, because the row began with an '!'. And you must flush the cache of your browser before comparing! -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for the hassle, but given your apparent affinity for flags, I was wondering if you could help me with a few things in relation to some of Fiji's historical flags. You see, I created the page for List of Fijian flags a few months ago, and in gathering up flags to place in it, I stumbled across a few references to some alleged flags used in the country in the past, ones that I haven't managed to find that much information on, or images of either. Any advice you could possibly provide me on this? Or, if this isn't really your field, would you at least know somewhere/someplace that would know more on this? Thanks in advance.

Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help. Which flags are you referring to? Fry1989 ^eh? 17:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Most of the flags in question supposedly hail from Fiji's pre-colonial years, though there are some from the colonial era itself. Here's what I know:

1) Flag of the Confederacy of Independent Kingdoms of Fiji, 1865-1867: The current Wikipedian version of this flag, shown here, shows it to be a five-pointed white star on dark blue. And yet, according to this article, the flag of the Confederacy featured a white eight-pointed star on a blue field. It even lists the Sydney Mail (12 August, 1865) as a source. I also stumbled across this FB post (not the most reliable source, I know, but it's something) by a Fijian flag designer that displays the same eight-pointed version. However, the version of the flag displayed everywhere else, including on on the FOTW website, displays the five-pointed version. This is rather confusing, especially considering the aforementioned article explains that the eight points on the star represented the number of Tribes that made up the Confederacy, which does make more sense than the seemingly random and meaningless five points of the more commonly displayed version (sure, I know not all the five-pointed stars featured on various national flags represent a specific number of things, but still).

2) Flag of the Kingdom of Bau, 1867-1871: Similarly, the present Wikipedian version of this flag, as shown here, shows it to be a sunburst and crown on a blue field. And yet, the same article from above mentions that the flag of that nation was a tricolour of "white, blue, and red, placed horizontally, with the sun rising out of the blue ground, and a crown in the top corner" (listing the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 July 1867 as a source). Which again creates confusion over the status of the all-blue version, which appears virtually everywhere relating to the Kingdom of Bau, including on the FOTW website. Though since the aforementioned article mentions that Bau had both a "King's standard" AND a "national ensign", it could be a possibility that the all-blue version was actually the former (an impression I've further gotten from this page on past Fijian flags, which mentions that said flag was based on the King's personal seal - perhaps not the most professional of pages, I know, but their information has to come from somewhere). Or it could be something else entirely. (I even requested the creation of said image at the Graphics Lab, even though it didn't quite turn out accurately, as seen here)

3) Alleged Flag of the Kingdom of Fiji, post-1871: Now this is the one that intrigues me the most. Given your affinity for flags, I assume you already know about the flag adopted by Fiji in 1871, white and blue with a dove in the centre. But here's the thing, the same Fiji Sun article from before mentions that this flag "didn't last very long", and that it was soon replaced by a "red flag divided in into four equal cantons by a blue cross with a white border and a crown in the centre", with the civil/merchant flag being the same, but "without the crown". This really caught my eye, as I have never even heard or seen anything anywhere else to even suggest the existence of this flag anywhere else. But it's still rather hard to ignore.

4) Supposed flag of Bau, 1860: Supposedly, at least according to this hubert herald article on Fiji, Seru Epenisa Cakobau, chieftain of Bau, introduced a flag for the island in 1860, which was "blue with a white coat of arms charged with a dove" (not so different from the later 1871 flag of a united Fiji), while also mentioning something about a separate royal flag (though, based on the description of it, it could just be the same as the 1871-1874 royal standard of Fiji, shown here, though maybe not.

5) 1883-1908 colonial flag of Fiji: The Wikipedian version of this flag displays the badge in the fly with a Tudor Crown. However, I've been thinking, since most British ensigns featuring crowns (such as with the flags of Queensland and Victoria) changed them from a St. Edward's Crown to a Tudor Crown after 1901, perhaps this flag would have borne a St. Edward's Crown prior to 1901 as well? After all, the badge is quite similar to that of the unofficial 19th century flag of British Columbia, which is shown to bear the St. Edward's version. But then again, this is purely speculative.

6) Fijian red ensigns: I know a red ensign version of the 1908 Fijian flag existed, as I have seen photos of it. Though I'm having trouble determining whether or not red versions of the 1877, 1883 and 1924 Fijian colonial flags existed as well, as there doesn't seem to be anything on them anywhere.

7) Order of the colours on the 1871 Fijian flag: Obviously, I've already mentioned the first flag of the Kingdom of Fiji. But here's the thing, I'm not sure whether or not the current version displayed on Wikipedia is the right version. Some of the sources I've already given you list the colours as being "blue and white", rather than the "white and blue" order currently displayed. I'm having real difficulty getting my head around this.

I deeply apologise for the congested barrage of information, but I just thought I should give you all I know on the matter. I know a lot of this would probably fit better on a Flag Talk page, but I didn't think that would really go anywhere (given that there isn't much activity on the Flag of Fiji Talk page, and the List of Fijian flags page is rather new, hence there is no Talk page yet). Obviously, I'm not expecting any magically conjured answers to all of this, but I just thought I should continue my search for information somewhere. Or, would you perhaps know of anyone/anywhere that might have such information? Sorry for the hassle again. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look, I'm just a bit slow at the moment. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Lion Fenian:, So for #1, I would suggest that we indeed change the star to 8 points. For #2, both versions exist on Commons and I don't know which is correct. Regarding #3, I have no idea what to do about this. The description is not enough for me to even imagine how the flag actually looked. #4, I would just presume they are the same flag. #5, that is a good assumption. I will look at creating new files with the different crowns in the future. #6, those are plausible assumptions but will need more research. It is likely unofficial versions existed if nothing less. #7, if there are differing sources, I would leave this alone until we can find some photographs or better evidence. I hope this helps. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: I understand, and thanks a lot for taking the time to read through this. I honestly never thought I'd be getting myself into this mess when I set about to create a List page for Fijian flags. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Hello again, sorry to bother you again, but I noticed you created an isolated version of the first badge of Colonial Fiji a few weeks ago, marked as being used from 1875-1883, despite the fact that FOTW lists the flag featuring said badge as being adopted in 1877. Can I ask why? Do you (genuine question) now have reason to believe the badge and flag were adopted in 1875 and not 1877? And do you think the titles of the 1877 Fijian flag and the 1877 Governor's flag should be changed to 1875 as well? Sorry again. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been something I missed. I will have to do some research and see which date is correct. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got a problem with your roundel change – For one thing they have dark green painted aircraft, a light gray low viz roundel would contrasted to dramatically to be of any use, and I've seen no evidence (images) anywhere on the web. The other problem is this roundel from Montenegro (not quite the same) - look: here, here, & here (G4 Super) :Also note the G4 has been removed from service for a few years now – so how could it be new as of 2018? That source appears to be pretty dubious, I will give you some time to get it worked out before I revert last changes - FOX 52 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370 and I consider the source for the new roundel to be legitimate. The link is from the Ministry of Defence. The gazette makes the roundel effective at the end of the month, so it will take time for images of the new roundel applied to aircraft IRL to begin to appear.

The other roundel you show, I have already made a request for in the Graphic Lab. It appears to have been in use alongside the 2006 roundel on a limited basis, but I can find no sources for it so there is no way to know when exactly it was used or if it was a trial roundel or not. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to my comment at File talk:Flag of Rhodesia (1968-1979).svg. --Craig (t|c) 03:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sat 1 logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man !!! I just saw you are adding road traffic signs. I have seen the source of the Taiwanese road traffic signs from 1954 to 1958. Do you have more of them (maybe all). Cheers best greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonut10 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcdonut10:, the only source I have for historic signs in Taiwan are from this booklet ([1], [2], [3], [4]). And there is the current series of signs available on Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, im trying to input an change in the Wikipedia image of the Flag of Sweden. Following RGB "equivalents" of the NCS specifications (NCS 4055-R95B for blue and NCS 0580-Y10R for yellow) from official government
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/sfs/20080888.pdf
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/document/?id=19830826
https://riksarkivet.se/sveriges-flaggas-farger
the RGB should be R:45, G:95, B:161 for blue and R:255, G:202, B:32 according to this conversion.
https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_converter.asp?color=ncs(4055-R95B)
https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_converter.asp?color=ncs(0580-Y10R)
(or use Pantone (approximation/conversion) 301 C and 116 C for blue and yellow, respectively, as also officially specified.)
This also looks waaay more how it looks IRL, which I see everyday, (even though this is just my opinion, the colours are from government specification, so the change is not based on my personal impression) compared to very (too!) bright current version. However, both Wikipedia and commons version I cannot edit, so maybe you could help, since I have seen you active in flags regarding colours etc. --Havsjö (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also can not edit either the Wikipedia or Commons version of this file. You will need to create a discussion on the talk page, which I would support. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thanks man, I created a talk page here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Sweden.svg#Adjust_colour_shades --Havsjö (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove any of the captions in the info boxes, regarding the military articles (Bahrain Air Force, Polish Air Force, Qatar Air Force and so on...) - there no need to take away information from the reader FOX 52 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information is self-evident, it doesn't need a caption. Captions are for things that need to be explained. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the readers are able to determine the difference between a seal, logo, emblem, and insignia? - The caption in the template is provided for a reason. FOX 52 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A seal, a logo, an emblem, a coat of arms, they're all essentially the same thing with different names. But I'll leave the caption alone. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enuff in turn I'll restore the roundels to there proper section - FOX 52 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is one area where I seek your thoughts on which is the native name in the info box i.e.: Bangladesh Air Force the native name is “বাংলাদেশ বিমান বাহিনী” . Now it’s already mentioned in the intro, and I don’t see how it helps the reader understand the content any better, specifically for English Wikipedia –(NOTE: I don't see them same being reciprocated USAF Greek page - thoughts?? - FOX 52 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion one way or the other. It is in the infobox though, but on most articles it is also duplicated in the introductory paragrapgh. So do we really need it twice? I think for some articles it is contentious though, I recall on the Indian Air Force it was removed on purpose, but I didn't go looking into the matter. I also appreciate your change of mind on the DR Congo air force article. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good - I'm gonna pull'em, it seem redundant - FOX 52 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present, low visibility).svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, sorry for the hassle, but since you have a liking for flags and appear to be Canadian (or at least that's what I've gathered from your profile page, apologies if I'm wrong), I could use your advice in relation to a matter pertaining to the List of Canadian flags page, if it's not too much trouble. You see, there are a certain few flags that I see as relevant to Canadian history that don't appear on said page, which leaves me unsure as to whether I should add them to the list or not, or what section I should put them under if I do. Now I have brought up this issue elsewhere, but never received any response on it, so I would certainly value your input on the matter? Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Lion Fenian:, Sure, we can talk about it. Which flags are you looking at adding? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thanks for replying (and sorry for the delay in replying myself, I was indisposed over the last week). And in response to your question, the flags I was thinking of adding are those of the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company (all below). After all, I'm no expert on Canadian history, but I do know that both of these trading companies did play a prominent role in what's now Canada from the 17th to 19th centuries, with the HBC in particular effectively ruling a large portion of Canada (Rupert's Land) until 1870. And although I know the NWC was never as powerful or prominent as the HBC, it still held notable sway during its relatively short tenure. Which does lead me to believe that there is a strong case for placing the flags of these companies in List of Canadian flags. After all, there are other such examples on other flag list pages for including the flags of historical trading companies that once wielded prominent power in those countries, such as:

1) The various flags of the British East India Company in List of Indian flags, as well as List of Malaysian flags.

2) The various flags of the British East Africa Company in List of flags of Kenya.

3) The flag of the British South Africa Company in both List of Zimbabwean flags and List of Rhodesian flags.

However, since no one has ever added the HBC and NWC flags to the Canadian list page before, it does make me wonder if there's a reason they aren't included. Which is currently the only thing stopping me from adding them by my own hand. Now I did bring this issue up on the Talk page for LOCF, but never received any response on it, despite being over a year ago. Hence I really would value what you have to say about this matter. Thanks.

• 
  Hudson's Bay Company flag (post 1801)
• 
  HBC flag (1707-1801)
• 
  HBC flag (1682-1707)
• 
  North West Company flag (1801-1821)
• 
  NWC flag (pre-1801)

Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Lion Fenian:, I agree that they are relevant and do not see any reason why they would be purposefully excluded. I would say go ahead and add them. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thanks for that, and I definitely will add them to the page as soon as possible. Just one more thing though; Which section on the LOCF page would you recommend putting them under? Organisational flags, perhaps? Or would you advise creating a completely new section for them? Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the historical section. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Done and dusted, and thanks again for your input. Though there is actually one other thing; I did put the latest version of the HBC Ensign in the historical section with all the others, as you said, but I was just wondering as to whether or not that particular one really qualifies as an historical flag, given that the HBC is currently still functioning as a company (unlike the NWC). So does that mean, do you think, that the post-1801 HBC flag is still official as well? Sorry, about this, the Flag of the Hudson's Bay Company page is rather sketchy on this matter, it just seems to say that the current HBC flag is "based on the Governor's standard". And again, sorry for the hassle. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Lion Fenian:, I am not aware of the HBC still using the flag, but I am also not aware of it ever having been revoked either. They do sometimes use the coat of arms on a white background seen here, but I know nothing about that flag. FOTW has limited information on it as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: (Apologies for the delay in responding) I understand. I suppose it would probably be best to leave the 1801 HBC flag in the historical section, for now anyway. Thanks for that. But since we're on the subject of the HBC and NWC, I wouldn't mind getting your input on one or two more things, before this matter is put to rest, if that's okay;

1) Regarding the aforementioned white HBC "Governor's" flag from the FOTW link above, as well as both here and here; I was considering making a request in the Graphics Lab for this flag to be created in SVG form, but I'm rather unsure about the CR status of the arms of the HBC (which of course features on the flag). As you can see, a photo of the arms appears on this File here, but I'm rather confused by the CR label on it, and I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia CR issues either. I was hoping that perhaps you'd know what I should do?

2) Regarding the NWC arms; I was also thinking of making a request in the Graphics Lab for that Company's arms (seen in an illustration on this File here) to be created in SVG form. But again, I'm also rather unsure by the wording of the CR labels on that file. Perhaps you could give me some advice? Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good graphic designer should be able to create free (non-copyrighted) SVG drawings of both coats of arms based on those images. So making a request is no problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Duly noted, and thanks for all your advice and input over the last few weeks. Though given that I already have a few pending requests in the Graphics Lab, it could be a while before I go through with such requests for these Company emblems. But until then, thanks again. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New Jersey Devils logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the captions, as (you siad you would do last time - yet there you are: here here here here here and so. - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my position entirely clear, you have no policy to the contrary, you're just going to have to follow me around if they're so desperately important to you. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK good to know that you don't honor what you say "But I'll leave the caption alone" - FOX 52 (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People change their minds. I'm allowed to change my mind. Moreover, reverting my entire edit as "unneccessary", something that not only takes time and effort but is also clearly beneficial to the project, certainly doesn't endear me. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52:, I'll extend an olive branch. I'll stop removing the captions, and even go out of my way to add them back, if you stop the extreme ownership of your own files on Commons such as File:Georgian Air Force emblem.svg when an improvement is made. The colours I changed it to should match the roundel and flag, and it doesn't change anything in regards to your authorship. I'd really rather not upload a new version separately. I also would like to consolidate various duplications, such as File:Roundel of Turkmenistan.svg and File:Turkmenistan Air Force Roundel.svg. If I remember right, the duplication was unintentional, and we really do not need two of the same thing. They could be merged (leaving which ever version is superior) under the "Roundel of..." file name standard which I previously created. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the variations are backed up with a source / photo (changes shouldn't be arbitrary done) - FOX 52 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is agreeable. In regards to the Turkmenistan Air Force roundel, I believe your version is superior. I was never happy with the stars on mine. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Could you create a version that would apply to all of Quebec for Road signs in Canada#Quebec gallery and Turn on red#North America? For example Laval, Quebec has a small number of intersections where this sign is applied. Peter Horn User talk 15:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 15:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is a generic version. Peter Horn User talk 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Horn:, do you mean like File:Québec P-115-1.svg? I do intend to re-do the Quebec category in the future, but right now I am working on New Zealand. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: That's the one that I failed to find. Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: There is a no entry sign which I believe to be peculiar to Quebec. It shows a green circle with a double arrow pointing left an right. The arrows are joined together to form a Y. It signals that one can go either left or right but NOT straight ahead. Peter Horn User talk 21:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Horn:, this one File:Québec P-110-4.svg. You can see all the Quebec signs that have so-far been uploaded on my sub-page, but as I said I will re-visit Quebec in the future and there are many signs that are currently missing. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Near here I live there is Bus/Taxi sign that specifies 24 h Peter Horn User talk 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Horn:, I don't seem to see any specifications for that on the ministry website, but when I revisit Quebec I will try to remember to create one. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Next time I take a walk I'll try to remember to take a photo with my iPhone. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fry, couldn't help but notice your vast coverage on Irish regulatory and warning signs. I also noticed you on the Comparison of European road signs talk page, and I have two questions:
1) Could you possibly create road sign W 163 (Queues likely)? It seems to have been overlooked (or maybe there is a reason it was not made?).
2) On the Comparison of European road signs article, I have edited the "entering and leaving built up areas" section to include signs commonly (and only) found on national roads. The "entering a built up area" was based on TSM Ch. 4 Figure 4.5.2. Was I correct in doing so? (Also, they are in .png format, should they be in .svg format?)
Many thanks! EthanL13 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EthanL13: Hi Ethan. Ireland is on my list of countries to continue adding signs for, and thankfully the Department of Transport now provides a list of working drawings, which were not available at the time when I originally uploaded many of the signs. Unfortunately, the more complicated symbols, like for the traffic queues sign, are a bit choppy. I will upload a version of that sign since it is currently missing, but it won't look as good as it could because of those flaws. I do intend to revisit Ireland in the future and make many of the signs much better.

As for your addition of the built-up area signs, that looks appropriate to me. And in regards to your question of SVG vs. non-SVG formatting, I consider SVG preferable but it isn't always an option and so other formats are perfectly acceptable too. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: That's absolutely perfect, thanks! EthanL13 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fry1989, may I know what photos were you referencing when you created these two former flags of the RSAF? 1 2

I have gone through the relevant National Archives of Singapore site and have failed to find any photos of their existence. This is the only former RSAF flag I have found. As you mentioned referencing a photo when converting them into the 1:2 ratio, would it be possible to link directly to the source? Seloloving (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seloloving: This is the photo that I based my images on, showing an original ratio of 1:2 at the time when they were in use, although I do not recall where I got the photo from. This photo from the RSAF museum supports that the earlier red-white-red roundel also was used on an ensign, although they appear to be modern reproductions in the newer ratio. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thank you for the photos! I will be linking them into the source of the pages. In addition, I found the construction sheets for the original Naval and State Marine Ensigns at a 1:2 ratio and redrawn them accordingly (the former with an explanation on the new size and link). I will be updating the two former RSAF flags for the crescent and stars to be the same size and location in the near future. Seloloving (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fry1989,

I see with amusement that you tried knocking down a brick wall with your head in 2012 and 2013, and surprisingly it didn't work. Would you like me to open a move discussion on that page and see if we have better luck in 2021?

Cheers, Egroeg5 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Egroeg5: Nearly 10 years, has it been so long? I appreciate your interest, but I'm willing to let the matter be. There is a redirect to the article so that users familiar with "Give Way" can still find it. However I do think it would be a good idea to include both terms in Template:Traffic signs, so I will make an alteration there. I would appreciate your support there if the edit is contested. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. You can count on my support, but I'm confident that nobody will contest a template edit. Egroeg5 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fry1989. For the past few months, I have done my best to clean up the flags related to Singapore, in addition to pushing through an edit request to the main Commons:File:Flag of Singapore.svg file to improve its accuracy. Recently, I came across a deluge of flags uploaded by a certain user from the different Olympics over the years, which I marked for deletion as completely unnecessary (they didn't do it for just Singapore, but for every single country). They are also proposing to use the variant flags in place of the main file for each of the different Olympics, and in my opinion makes maintenance extremely difficult and has lasting repercussions on the project as a whole.

I would like to request for your neutral comment on the issue, as this is not limited to one flag, but over a hundred. I don't know any other active users with an interest in vexillology, so I am not sure where else to post this. It's alright if you do not wish to comment either. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seloloving: Hello, I apologise for my slow response. I am aware of the many variations on Commons. The issue is that the various Olympic committees issue flag style guides every games, and the specifications often differ greatly from the national specifications. So it does make some sense to have each variation on Commons. But I would firmly oppose using them in place of the the version following the national specifications on each different article, as I agree it makes it very complicated for maintenance. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fry,

First and foremost, I want to thank you for all your excellent and uniquely comprehensive efforts to bring order into the chaotic space of road signs all over the world ! Being a traffic sign enthusiast myself, you have tremendously helped me – both to see the global "bigger picture" and to learn about the subtleties in particular countries and territories. Please definitely keep going; your work is highly appreciated !

Personally and somewhat jokingly, I would add that "this user wishes all countries would sign and ratify the Vienna Convention (which, admittedly, might also have to do with the fact that I live in the very city this masterpiece of modern applied semiotics is named after), and this user wishes the MUTCD to hell"... ;-)

Secondly, I would like to leave some comments and ask you some questions (out of many more):

1. On your map "Mandatory signs around the world", you marked not only Chile and Bolivia (where this fully corresponds to my own research), but also Peru with a light green colour, meaning that Peru uses a mixture of Vienna Type A and Vienna Type B mandatory signs.

But in all official documents about traffic signs in Peru (e.g., http://www.am-sur.com/am-sur/peru/tr/senales-trafico/senalizacion.pdf, http://www.sutran.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/manualdedispositivosdecontroldetransitoautomotorencallesycarreteras1.pdf), I could not find any blue Vienna Type A signs, only (slightly modified) Vienna Type B signs (like in most other Latin American countries). Do you have any other resources that show that there are indeed Vienna Type A mandatory signs in Peru ?

2. The English (but not the Italian) legend to your map "Warning signs around the world" includes a violet colour intended to depict countries that use a mixture of Vienna Type A and Vienna Type B warning signs (or, given the geographical and "geopolitical" distribution of the Type B signs, I think it is safe to say that they are based on the MUTCD rather than the Vienna Convention).

But, having studied the map in detail in its current and previous versions and hopefully not having overlooked anything, I could not detect any countries/territories that are marked violet. However, there are at least certain UK island overseas territories that do (if not officially then in actuality) use a mixture of Vienna Type A and MUTCD warning signs, for instance, Ascension Island and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ascension Island (half way between Brazil and the African west coast, to the north-west of Saint Helena) seems not yet to be contained on your map at all, and the Turks and Caicos Islands are marked red instead of violet.

Lastly, I was wondering if the switch of Fiji from Vienna Type A with yellow background (black in your colour scheme) to MUTCD warning sings (marked yellow) is indeed official yet. The only references to such a switch I was able to find so far are based mainly on the following draft from 2017: https://www.fijiroads.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Annex-7.1-Draft-Signing-Guide-Part-1-Introduction-_V1.0.pdf. Based on your knowledge, have these MUTCD-style signs definitively been adopted in the meantime ?

Thank you very much in advance for any answers to my comments and questions !

Juvand (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Digging deeper, I just realised that there is another obvious candidate that warrants the violet colour for using a mixture of Vienna Type A and MUTCD/Vienna Type B warning signs – the notoriously complicated Argentina. The mixture there is not a result of happenstance or indifference like in some UK overseas territories, but codified in the official regulations.

You probably know the following document: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/manual_sv.pdf.

According to these regulations, there are two types of warning signs in Argentina: normal warning signs in MUTCD style (starting on page 145 with the sign P-7) and signs that warn about "major dangers" ("advertencia de máximo peligro") of the Vienna Type A type (pages 135-143, signs P-1 to P-6). Such "major dangers" are for example railway and pedestrian crossings, very sharp curves (in contrast to "moderate" curves depicted by MUTCD-style sign P-7), but also the classical Vienna Type A sign "Other (major) danger" (red triangle with a white background and a black exclamation mark).

These two categories of warning signs in Argentina definitely justify to colour the country in violet on the corresponding map.

I will keep on digging and will inform you if I find further special constellations in other countries that should be marked on your maps.

Juvand (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Greetings. It is nice to meet another enthusiast, and very encouraging to hear that my work has been helpful for others to learn about this subject. I also wish all countries would adopt the Vienna Convention, especially my home country of Canada. Our situation is especially complex since road signs are currently controlled by the provinces, with no unified national standard. We also use the green circle mandatory signs, as I'm sure you have noticed, and of which I am not a big fan.

In regards to Peru, the most recent document I have is from 2016, and can be downloaded here.

The most recent documents I have for Fiji are from 2019, and can be downloaded here. It appears they have moved beyond the draft stage.

I had not reviewed the warning signs map in quite some time, and did not add the violet colour to the infobox. The violet colour would indeed be accurate for Argentina. I don't remember why I chose to fill in Argentina as solid yellow, but it most likely was because except for a very few "major danger" signs, the rest are all yellow diamond signs. Perhaps I should change Argentina to violet after all. The smaller territories such as Accension Island and St Helena are difficult to put on the map, and difficult to get a proper understanding of the situation on the ground since photographs are very difficult to find. But we can keep researching.

Thanks for dropping by. Let me know if there is anything else you wish to discuss. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer and help !

During the last couple of hours, I have continued to deep-dive into the subtleties of warning/mandatory (and other) sign usage in Mexico, Central America and South America. While Mexico and Central America are quite straightforward (in their slavish imitation of the MUTCD, but at least using more pictograms instead of the totally outdated only-text signs the US loves so much), large parts of South America are a veritable mess. Many South American countries are problematic to classify because they use, to a smaller or larger extent, arbitrary mixtures of different styles. For example, the green Canadian signs you mentioned play an, albeit marginal, role also in Chile, Uruguay uses a blue Vienna Type A sign to mark bicycle routes, Paraguay has an Argentinian-style minimum speed sign with a red border, blue background and white text, etc.

I'll keep you posted regarding all further important observations of mine - after ending the American leg of my "tour", I plan to travel to Africa, South Asia and Oceania next... :-)

By the way, I have a theory why certain classes of signs in the Vienna Convention do not explicitly mention the possibility of blue (instead of black) symbols. This may have to do with the regulations valid in France in the 1950s and 60s, where some types of signs used blue text, symbols, arrows etc., while other signs used black text and symbols. Meanwhile, all French signs have been changed to only black or white symbols, whereas blue ones seem to thrive only in Japan.

Juvand (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: The convention itself has some odd omissions here and there, and I can not tell if they are deliberate or an oversight. My presumption however has been that unless explicitly stated otherwise, the omissions are accidental. As you mentioned, blue text/symbols is one of those areas that is not entirely consistent. Aside from Japan, Morocco also uses blue text/symbols on both their regulatory signs and warning signs. It appears though that Morocco may be transitioning to black text/symbols. Algeria and Tunisia also used blue text/symbols at one time, but they appear to have switched to black long ago. As former French colonies, it does make sense that most of their signs are nearly indentical to French signs. You'll find this appears to be the case in most former French colonies in Africa, when you turn your research to that region. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very interesting answer. Yes, the signs in Morocco and other former French colonies are very obviously influenced by (or rather almost identical to) the French ones. It appears, though, that Morocco has indeed switched to black text and symbols, at least according to the following document from April 2019: http://www.equipement.gov.ma/Infrastructures-Routieres/Exploitation/Documents/Les%20signaux%20routiers%20-%20Nomenclature.pdf. All inscriptions and symbols on the signs that are relevant in our context are black there. On the other hand, this legislative document taken from the "Bulletin Officiel" (the official Government Gazette of Morocco, and therefore presumably containing the authentic version of the new regulations) and published in November 2019, presents a more complicated picture with some inscriptions and symbols apparently having a sort of grey-blue colour (with no obvious system behind the distribution of black and blue-grey text and symbols): http://www.equipement.gov.ma/Infrastructures-Routieres/Exploitation/Documents/IGSR-BO_6832_FR.pdf

In any case, I will continue my research (consulting earlier versions, etc.)...

Do you perhaps dispose of any (semi-)official documents containing the road signs for Guyana and Belize ? Unfortunately, I have so far only found rather unreliable and incomplete references, e.g., the constant mentioning with countless photos of the "oh so funny" (I personally don't think so) "bumps" sign of Belize.

I am also currently trying to find some reliable sources on Papua New Guinea (still grey on your mandatory signs map, yellow on your warning signs map). Given the complex history of PNG as a partly Australian, partly German colony (with the German part also given to Australia in 1920) and continued administration by Australia until 1975, I think it is very likely that the PNG road signs follow the Australian model (maybe with some minor differences). But this – like so many other – cases still requires in-depth research.

Regarding the colouring of countries (at the moment primarily South American countries) on your maps, we should perhaps try to find some "rule of thumb" to decide whether the use of a mixed system is extensive and important enough to warrant a corresponding colouring on the maps. I think the Argentinian case of "major warning" vs. "normal warning" signs should definitely be represented on the map in violet; whereas the very limited use of Canadian-style green-border signs in Chile and Peru is not significant enough in my opinion. At the same time, I'm still not sure whether the use of a blue sign for bicycle routes in Uruguay, and the use of red-blue-white minimum speed signs in Paraguay are worth of being reflected on the maps (I tend to think that they are not, but it's hard to decide).

Juvand (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Despite the rather ambiguous display in the Bulletin Officiel of Morocco, the changes of 2019 are indeed meant to change the colours from dark blue to black, according this report from a Moroccan newspaper (^[1]):

"Avec les développements dans ce domaine, certains panneaux ont été ajoutés ainsi que certaines exigences techniques liées à d’autres panneaux, comme le changement des panneaux de couleur bleu foncé des panneaux en noir pour les rendre plus visibles, surtout la nuit."

Juvand (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more PS... Here is a link to the 1963 traffic sign regulations of France (you probably know the document anyway): https://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/routes/images/9/94/Arr%C3%AAt%C3%A9_22_octobre_1963.pdf. Although published only in 1963, it is basically a unified reinforcement of various other norms that had been in force in France already since 1946 (or even before the war).

It describes in detail the colours of the various warning, prohibition and mandatory signs and explaining in detail the use of the "bleu foncé" colour for text and symbols on a "crème" background colour with a red border on warning and prohibition signs (the mandatory signs were already white on blue). The change from "bleu foncé" and "crème" to black and white was codified in 1977 and 1982.

These French traffic sign colour schemes surely had an effect on the Vienna Convention decisions. At the same time, it certainly deserves to be mentioned that the USSR – as well as some other socialist countries in Europe – also had an extremely important (and very positive – the USSR was a pioneer and world leader in pictographic, general semiotic and road safety research right up to the late 1980s !) influence on the overall design solutions of the Vienna Convention and all its later developments and derivatives, both on the international and the national levels, until the late 1980s.

Juvand (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Thank you so much for those extra documents and information, that is always helpful. And as I mentioned on my Commons talk page for another user, I do have a lot of information for a lot of countries, so if there is anything you are looking for, feel free to ask and I will send you whatever I do have.

Sadly, I do not have any documentation for Belize or Guyana. In fact, even finding photographs is extremely difficult for most Caribbean countries. Google Streetview does not even cover these areas yet, although Mapillary does to some extent. I have two photos for Belize ([5], [6]), and that is all.

From the little I have seen of Papua New Guinea, they import most of their signs from Australia, with some minor alterations for PNG pidgin here and there.

With the map colouring, I agree there needs to be some threshold. Argentina appears to pass it with their combination of diamond and triangular warning signs. Chile and Peru do not, in my opinion. Their use of green circle signs is extremely narrow and refers to actions which you are allowed to do, specifically turning on a red signal. The Canadian usage is more in line with actual mandatory signs, telling you something you must do. In regards to Paraguay and Uruguay, I am similarly undecided.

On a personal note, I really am not a fan of the crème colour on the old French signs at all. Blech. Anyhow, that's all I have for now. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for updating the warning signs map (marking Argentina in violet) ! :-)

Today I have a further question for you (well, actually there are many questions, but I don't want to annoy you ;-): I began researching India in detail yesterday. It became immediately obvious to me that India is in all likelihood the most complicated case worldwide, with massive inconsistencies and a plethora of "ad hoc solutions" on the local level, while central and state regulations are either not up-to-date or not taken seriously.

The main (legal) reason for this (there are socio-economic and other factors, too, of course) is the confusing and ambiguous wording of Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, combined with the totally outdated (and even amusing) hand-drawn sign specimens in a classical pre-Worboys British style in the First Schedule to the Act:

116. Power to erect traffic signs.—(1) (a) The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed or erected in any public place for the purpose of bringing to public notice any speed limits fixed under sub-section (2) of section 112 or any prohibitions or restrictions imposed under section 115 or generally for the purpose of regulating motor vehicle traffic.

[...]

(2) Traffic signs placed or erected under sub-section (1) for any purpose for which provision is made in the Schedule shall be of the size, colour and type and shall have the meanings set forth in the Schedule, but the State Government or any authority empowered in this behalf by the State Government may make or authorise the addition to any sign set forth in the said Schedule, of transcriptions of the words, letters or figures thereon in such script as the State Government may think fit, provided that the transcriptions shall be of similar size and colour to the words, letters or figures set forth in the Schedule.

[...]

(7) For the purpose of bringing the signs set forth in [the First Schedule] in conformity with any International Convention relating to motor traffic to which the Central Government is for the time being a party, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make any addition or alteration to any such sign and on the issue of any such notification, [the First Schedule] shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.

Link to the current version of the MVA 1988 plus schedule: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1798?view_type=search&sam_handle=123456789/1362

Based on this section of the MVA, the Indian Roads Congress has been publishing the (theoretically !) nation-wide standard IRC-67 ("Code of Practice for Road Signs") since 1978 with revisions made in 2001, 2010 and 2012. The current version can be found here: https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/irc.gov.in.067.2012.pdf.

In reality, the various state and local authorities in India seem not to feel bound by the prescriptions of this IRC standard, and therefore there are countless local variations of the road signs. For the State of Kerala, I have even found (on the official website of the Kerala State Department of Motor Vehicles !) mandatory signs that are white on blue, but with an additional red border, similar to the style previously used in South Africa and some neighbouring countries.

But back to my question: The earliest version of the IRC-67 standard I could find is the first revision of 2001. In this revision, the mandatory signs are already of the white-on-blue Vienna Type A style. I have been unable so far to find any references to a former usage of Vienna Type B style mandatory signs in India (as indicated on your map).

Do you have any such resources, and do you know when exactly India has switched from Type B to Type A (at least in theory) ?

And one more question for now: Do you have any resources, and do you know when exactly Thailand has switched from Type B to Type A mandatory signs ? I browsed the internet pages of the Thai Rural Roads Department (which you referenced as the source for your old Thai road signs files) but wasn't particularly successful, and a lot of links there seem to be broken.

I'd also be interested in when the Philippines changed from Type B to Type A.

Juvand (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Firstly, yes, India is very complicated and inconsistent. All my documentation for India is available here. As you will find, none show the Type B mandatory signs. However I must have seen photos of them in the past, as that is the only reason I would colour India that way on the map. Indeed, as you mentioned, some charts/photos have even shown Argentina/SACU style signs that are blue with a red border, so in truth India is all over the place.

All of my documentation for Thailand can similarly be accessed here. I do not know of a date when such a switch was made, but it appears to have been within the last two or three decades.

The Philippines is based on photographic evidence only, as I have spotted several Type B signs when using Google Streetview. However, a Philippine user on Commons did suggest to me that the Type B signs were never official, and just caused by lax enforcement of the national standard. I do not know for sure whether this was the case. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your answer (and your patience with me ;-). Your help is greatly appreciated !

If I may, I have some further questions today: Do you have any official documents/manuals for the the signs in a slightly modified pre-Worboys British style that were used in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi and their subsequent switch to SADC-RTSM signs ? I have found some pretty good pictures and sources for Zimbabwe where the switch took place in 2016, but almost nothing on Zambia and Malawi (not even the exact dates of their adopting the SADC-RTSM).

I find it quite interesting that these three countries shared such "old-fashioned" similar (or even fully identical ?) road signs systems until very recently. Of course, they have a closely intertwined common history as a special geographical and administrative grouping of British colonies in Africa, but (Southern) Rhodesia embarked on its own way already in 1965 by the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. It would have been more logical in my opinion for 1970s Rhodesia to having copied apartheid-era South African/SACU designs at least until the end of white minority rule in 1979 and the renaming of the country to Zimbabwe.

I really wonder why Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi kept the old British system for so long, whereas most other former British colonies in Africa (say, for instance, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) seem to have switched to Vienna Type A signs very soon after independence...

And lastly, do you have any official document/manual for the SACU signs, or, at least, for South Africa in particular ?

Juvand (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I still have some additional comments and questions for today.

I saw that you changed Nigeria on the warning signs map (by the way, the new colours look very good !). According to my research so far, Nigeria seems to be a case almost as complex and inconsistent as India. The Highway Manual of 2013 (https://worksandhousing.gov.ng/management/uploads_images/1569354651.pdf) indeed shows the warning (as well as the prohibitory) signs with a yellow background. On the other hand, I came across many charts and pictures online, that either show the signs to have a white background or an incomprehensible and unsystematic mixture of both; for example, on the site http://www.highwaycode.com.ng/.

On the mandatory signs map, Nigeria is marked as having switched from Vienna Type B to Vienna Type A signs (the Type A signs correspond to the Highway Manual 2013 and other sources). Do you have documents showing an earlier use of Type B signs ?

And finally (for now): Do you have documents that show a switch from Type B to Type A mandatory signs in Bangladesh and Nepal ? Pakistan and Sri Lanka definitely have Type B signs, and it would make sense for Bangladesh to have switched at some point in time to Type A Indian-style ones after it had achieved its independence from Pakistan with Indian help in 1971. However, it would be interesting to know when. It is also not surprising that Nepal would follow the Indian model given the close relationship between the two countries (but I also don't know when the change was made in Nepal). Bhutan, on the contrary, seems to use Type B signs without following Indian, Bangladeshi and Nepali practice. If you have any more information on these countries, I would be very thankful for your sharing it.

PS – I also might have a somewhat different request for you, namely to correct three maps that erroneously depict the colour of the Vienna motorway symbol and all other motorway signs in Belarus to be blue instead of green, though the motorway signage has, in fact, always been green in Belarus since the introduction of special motorway signs in the USSR in 1979. Please see the following comment I left on another user's comment page (unfortunately, I have not received any answer so far, and the maps still have not been corrected): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnonMoos#File:Colore_della_segnaletica_autostradale.svg_and_two_other_maps

Juvand (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Hello again, that is quite a few questions but I will try to answer them all to your expectations. Firstly I'll start with Malawi/Zambia/Zimbabwe. The pre-Worboys style warning signs were definitely used in all three countries going as far back as the Federation, and possibly even further. The regulatory signs however were more modern than those used in the UK prior to the Worboys Committee, strangely enough. I do have two PDFs (which overlap) from Zambia of when they began modernising their traffic signs (but before adopting SADC). I also have several charts, one appears to be an original scan from the (Southern) Rhodesian era, whilst another appears to be photocopies of a more contemporary Zimbabwean manual. I also have a photo from a chart on the wall of a driving school. They all approximately show the same signs. I also have several hundred photographs of signs in situ that I can provide to you upon request, although I'll hold back for now since there are so many.

Next let's take a look at South Africa. The country has gone through at least four versions of traffic signs, probably five. I have a drawing that I will be including, explaining the basic variations and time periods. I also have a brief photocopy mentioning the new SARTSM in 1993 where the blue backgrounds on signs were changed to white, and two basic samples of SACU signs from an online tourist website about "driving in South Africa", that doesn't appear to be available online anymore. Everything else is based on photography. Once more, I have several hundred photographs during these various periods which are available upon request. I know that the South African Government holds a copy of the manual from the SACU period, as I emailed them requesting one. The response that I received stated that they are only aware of one physical copy left in their archives and for that reason they were not prepared to give it to me, and that since it has not been digitised they were unable to provide me with that either.

Now in regard to Nigeria, indeed the country is very inconsistent, perhaps even more-so than India. The official manual which we both have is the one I am basing my map off of. But as you mentioned, some websites show white backgrounds instead of yellow, and on Google Streetview I have found that the importation of American signs (regulatory and warning) is also prevalent. My source for Nigeria using Type B mandatory signs is a sole "turn right" sign I found on Streetview, but with a yellow background instead of white. Nigeria is the only country I am aware of that used Type B with a yellow background, and I have not figured out how to reflect this on my map, so for now it is lumped in with all the other Type B users. I will include all my photos for Nigeria, as there are not that many, only two dozen. As you will see, I have mostly captured them myself from Streetview.

Bangladesh is indeed labeled as having used Type B mandatory signs since they were once part of Pakistan. I can not recall any sources for Nepal, nor do I have any in my records. I must have either seen a photo or made the presumption that they followed the Indian practice of the time.

I will look at the maps as requested. In the meantime, my documentation for the African countries mentioned can be accessed here. Let me know if you wish to go through all my photographs, and I can make that available in the future. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, I have updated File:Colore della segnaletica autostradale.svg but I am not entirely happy with it. I need to find a blank version of the most up-to-date global map, including disputed regions like Kosovo and Crimea, and including smaller territories like Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Maldives. I attempted to update File:Color of European Motorway Signs.svg but am having an error of some sort when I try to upload the new version. Lastly, I do not have the ability to update the PNG map. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please apologise my belated answer; the last couple of days have been (and continue to be) quite stressful. Nevertheless, I have kept on researching whenever possible, with new questions/comments arising (including several remarks and questions about Canada and why I think the ATC-TAC is obviously crazy, selling its new 6th edition of the MUTCDC for $ 750 and a "mere" $ 575 for members !), so I will definitely write you a longer message as soon as possible.

Thank you wholeheartedly for your very informative and comprehensive response and your help with the maps !

The map File:Color of European Motorway Signs.svg is used not so much on Wiki-related projects themselves, but very often displayed in forums, by media outlets and in similar places all over the internet.

The PNG map File:Highway speed limits europe with indicator colors.png is more problematic because it is used on numerous language versions of Wikipedia (including such large ones as the German, Spanish, French and Italian). I will try to contact the user that last edited the map, and if that does not help, earlier editors of the map.

I would indeed be interested in all your photographs. :-) But please take your time, there is absolutely no need to hurry.

Thanks so much again; I am really very glad to have found such a competent and friendly expert and contact person !

Juvand (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're getting along so well. I would be interested in seeing what documents and photos you have as well at some point, so you may want to segregate yours from mine if you are downloading them (as I expect you would be). As for my photos, I have some that overlap, and I'll have to make sure they're all in the right category, but it shouldn't take too long for me to be able to upload them to my dropbox. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you very much ! Of course, I will gladly share my documents with you (I don't have too many photos yet, since I have so far been relying more on official legal norms, technical standards and similar documents, for example from manuals etc.). BTW, could you perhaps upload your India and Thailand folders once more ? Unfortunately, it seems I have accidentally deleted them yesterday. :-/

Juvand (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the categories for India and Thailand. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the India and Thailand folders and thank you for continuously improving the warning and mandatory signs maps.

Regarding the warning signs map, I already wanted to write to you and the user RedaCEC yesterday, but unfortunately did not find the time to do so.

@RedaCEC: First off, I would like to thank the user RedaCEC for their valuable contributions. Colouring the Turks and Caicos Islands violet is certainly correct, and it is true that the Cayman Islands also use some MUTCD-influenced signs. But I am not entirely sure whether the lone MUTCD "Dead End" sign and some signs in connection with school zones are enough to mark the Cayman Islands in violet. Please take a look at the Road Code of the Cayman Islands, 2012: http://cnslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Traffic-Control-Regulations-2012.pdf. What do you think, Fry ?

Definitely worthy of being marked as using a mixture of Vienna Type A and MUTCD-style warning signs is Ascension Island, which would require adding a violet dot in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean ;-), as Ascension Island is so far not represented on the map at all.

I fully agree with you that the temporary warning signs in construction zones in Singapore are interesting for sure, but the map should focus on the main regular warning signs, and Singapore should therefore be coloured red.

Lastly, I find user RedaCEC's remarks about the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (and possibly some other highways) in the Philippines fascinating, but – while "travelling along" certain sections of this expressway on Google Street View yesterday – I was unable to verify that diamond-shaped MUTCD-like warning are in use there. I took some pictures of official Vienna Type A warning signs on this expressway that I will share when I hopefully will find the time to do so. What I did find was a large sign that says that the expressway was built in cooperation with Japan in 2008. Perhaps the Japanese indeed used their diamond-shaped yellow signs there during construction, but they have since been replaced by signs according to the official regulations of the Philippines ?

@RedaCEC: If you have any pictures of yellow diamond-shaped warning signs on this and other expressways in the Philippines, please share them. That would be great as I am very interested in looking at them and comparing with the Street View data.

Juvand (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: I have updated the maps, as I was able to find a superior template map. Now they are uniform with their colour settings as well. In regards to your comment above, the map does have a dot for St. Helena, but not Accension Island. Also, I am unable to download the PDF you linked above. I do not know if it is a problem on my end or the source end. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked again and noticed that the mandatory signs (called "direction signs") in Bhutan seems to be of the Vienna Type A (white-on-blue) style at least since 2017, probably even much longer:

Please see the following official Bhutan standard published in 2017 for reference: https://www.mowhs.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Road-Safety-Signs-Symbols-Final.pdf, especially pages 3 and 4.

At the same time, this standard is inherently contradictory: The colour of regulatory (including mandatory / direction) signs is described as "[t]he color of the Mandatory or Regulatory sign shall be white background with red border and black graphical symbol" on page 2, which corresponds to Vienna Type B signs. Furthermore, the Annexure A table on page 23 shows a "Straight ahead" sign in Vienna Type B style in direct contradiction to the Type A sign with the same meaning shown on page 4.

Strange... Should the colour of Bhutan be changed on the mandatory signs map to blue (or light blue, if one is to assume that this is a deliberate switch from Type B to Type A signs) ?

Juvand (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The only mandatory direction sign in all of Bhutan I have found so far on Street View is a Type B "Turn left" sign in Thimphu, though (but the picture is already from 2013, so things could have changed in the meantime). Juvand (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: I do not like the inconsistency, and I am also bothered by the document borrowing images from the Philippines. I am going to change Bhutan to grey for now. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thank you !

Furthermore, I have just corrected the Road signs in Pakistan article to reflect that Pakistan uses Vienna Type B mandatory signs.

Some stupid IP-address-only user(s) tried to engage you in a trollish edit war around this issue back in 2018 and 2019 by changing the mandatory signs to Vienna Type A ones, and unfortunately, after some time of going back and forth, the article had kept these erroneous Type A signs until today. I have now replaced them all by the correct Type B signs.

Juvand (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS – Here is a link to a message I left on the user page of User:Gohkenytp723 who changed the Mandatory signs map yesterday shortly after you did: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gohkenytp723#Your_edit_of_the_%22Mandatory_signs_around_the_world%22_map Juvand (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Thank you for your alterations. I too am curious about Gohkenytp723's recent edits. The circular stop sign for Turkey I believe is plausible, althought verifying such an older sign will be difficult. The red text give way sign for Dominica I am less certain of. I have been watching several "driving in" videos on Youtube (a helpful resoure for regions not yet covered by Google Maps) and I did spot one, but it included a red arrow below the text and appeared to be applying to right turns only at a complex junction. The one or two other give way signs I spotted had black text. Interestingly, it appears Dominica has recently imported a lot of warning signs from China with the yellow background and black border, although traditional red-bordered triangles also show up. I suspect the red-bordered triangles are the official ones, but for poorer countries sometimes importing cheaper signs is just the easier option. I've spotted Chinese warning signs in Tonga as well, and even more peculiarly in Bolivia in areas nearby the Chinese Embassy. I also see you noticed the dead link for their change to the mandatory signs map. I was going to ask them about it at some point but hadn't gotten to it yet. Their map for countries with exclamation mark warning signs is a bit niche but I don't mind it, it just needs a bit of clarification. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thank you very much for your very interesting remarks.

I have an abundance of additional comments, questions and files I would like to share with you; I spent my whole time since yesterday morning researching... Therefore, I am a bit exhausted now but will try to briefly mention some points.

1. On your excellent page containing a gallery of all possible Vienna Convention signs, you wrote the following regarding mandatory signs:

"It should be noted that signatories which have elected to use Model Db must include the oblique red bar on prohibitory and restrictive signs, otherwise these signs would be identical and could lead to dangerous confusion for drivers."

And further:

"This sign is only provided for in Model Da, since using Model Db would be identical to sign C14. Signatories that have elected to use Model Db must therefore find an alternative way of signing minimum speed limits."

Am I correct in assuming that these astute and certainly correct observations are based on your own logical inferences, and not on the text of the Convention itself ? I am asking because I was unable to find these provisions explicitly stated in the Convention.

2. I tried to find out where the Type B mandatory signs have their origin, both in general and in regard to the Vienna Convention.

My research so far leads me to the following conclusions: The first country to use mandatory directional signs in a style that now corresponds to Vienna Type B was, in all likelihood, Germany in 1934 (expanded in 1937). Almost all other countries in Europe that had developed more comprehensive road regulations by then used at that time already white-on-blue (now "Type A") signs (apart from idiosyncratic systems like in the United Kingdom). Several countries occupied or annexed by Nazi Germany between 1938 and 1945 had to adopt these German signs, but got rid of them as soon as possible after 1945, when, for obvious reasons, Germany no longer served as a "role model". My home country of Austria abolished these German mandatory signs in 1947 and replaced them with "Type A" signs that had already been used in Austria between 1929 and 1938. Both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic also replaced the 1934/37 signs by the 1950s.

The interesting question now becomes: Where and why did the signs that in 1968 became known as the Type B mandatory signs survive and flourish ? It will still require a lot of additional research, but I think I have found a preliminary working hypothesis: two countries, in particular, were instrumental for this development.

Firstly, Brazil which as one of the very first countries in the Americas adopted a nationwide road code with standardised road signs in 1941. These September 1941 regulations (there was an earlier version from January 1941 but it was replaced in September – see the files in my links) introduced directional mandatory signs that are practically identical in design (up to minute details - for instance, the very thin shape of the arrows etc.) to their contemporary German counterparts. I guess it is safe to say that Brazil deliberately chose to follow the German model (though Brazil supported the Allies since 1942).

Up to the present day, Brazil may serve as the most "prototypical" model country for the use of Type B (both warning and mandatory) signs, including even a perfect symmetry between prohibitory (oblique red bar) and mandatory (no oblique red bar) signs, for example, "No bicycles" and "Bicycle route". At the same time, Brazil has only a comparatively minimal MUTCD influence (Venezuela, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay are overall similar, but with much more MUTCD-like elements).

3. This remark, by the way, brings me to another important point I would like to discuss with you somewhat later, namely my idea of identifying for warning and mandatory (and possibly also other) signs certain "systems / countries of reference" that most "purely" adhere to a certain model. When it comes to Vienna Type B signs, Brazil is definitely such a model country. For Type A almost all European countries (though, perhaps not those using yellow backgrounds) and all former republics of the USSR in Asia can fulfil this role. For the MUTCD-based or heavily MUTCD-influenced countries, the "textbook case" is, of course, the United States itself. I think that such a "graded approach" in terms of "pureness" of following a certain "prototype" might help in classifying and categorising countries with various forms of "mixed" systems.

But back to point 2: The other country that kept Type B mandatory signs alive by adopting them in 1956 and expanding on their use in 1962 was the Republic of Ireland. In 1956 (and again in 1962), Ireland adopted "American"-looking warning signs (though their legends are much more European than American) and, for whatever reason, Type B-style mandatory signs. Meanwhile, starting in 1997, most of these Type B mandatory signs have been replaced by Type A signs, but the Type B warning signs still remain as an absolutely peculiar feature in Europe.

In my shared files, you will find an edition of the Irish 1962 regulations from the Oireachtas (Parliament) website that is much better than the one on the Irish Statute Book website where many pictures of signs are missing and the picture files that are present are of very poor quality.

4. You have surely noticed that - in contrast to the Type B warning signs - the Vienna Convention does not give a single graphic example of Type B mandatory signs. Reading the text, I cannot help but get the impression that the Type B mandatory signs were a "last-minute addition" to make it possible for countries like Brazil and Ireland to sign the convention (Brazil did, but did not ratify it until now; Ireland did not sign at all).

Whereas the Type B warning signs are treated on an equal footing with the Type A signs, the Type B mandatory signs seem to be "put in second place". That is a very interesting difference, I think.

5. Which brings me to my last points for now (though I have so many more...): Contained in my shared files is also the last pre-Worboys complete traffic sign regulations enactment of the UK from 1957 and a 1944 report on proposals to improve the pre-Worboys British signs (many of these proposals were realised between 1945 and 1957).

Unfortunately, there is still no really comprehensive and reliable gallery of pre-1964 UK signs (especially the ones between 1934 and 1964), so these two files might be helpful in creating such a gallery.

6. And finally, I have also included in my shared files a very fascinating document: a very first draft Convention by the United Nations Economic and Social Council on worldwide unification of traffic signs from 1952. In some way, one could call it the earliest draft of the Vienna Convention (not counting the Geneva Protocol of 1949) after 1945. But its content, its proposed "solutions" are extremely different from the ones that were finally codified in Vienna 16 years later, in 1968.

The "driving force" behind the early conventions and protocols (Paris 1909, Paris 1926, Geneva 1931, Geneva 1949 etc.) had been Western European countries, most of all France. The most important driving forces behind the preparations and decisions of the Vienna Convention have again been France, the USSR as well as a post-Worboys UK.

But this strange 1952 "draft convention" is markedly different. It is (also based on the introductory remarks) obvious that this draft was an attempt by the US to, yet again, impose its will upon the world by trying to masquerade an only slightly modified MUTCD-style system as a model for an international "UN convention". When (thankfully !) the Americans had to accept that Europe and many other parts of the world would (for once !) not bend to their will and instead developed the Vienna Convention, the US (that would never give up its own allegedly "superior" system) immediately and totally withdrew itself from the preparations of the Vienna Convention and has since repeatedly affirmed that it has not the slightest intention of ever adhering to it. Which is too bad, of course... ;-)))

Here is my link (more documents will follow soon): https://jmp.sh/jobHHgl

I hope you will find some of these documents useful !

Juvand (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: That is quite a few points to ponder over. Also, thank you for the very helpful and informative documents.

Firstly, in regards to my subpage for the Vienna Convention, it is true that there is a significant amount of commentary based upon personal knowledge and logical assumption. Any information that is not explicitly within the convention itself is my own in an attempt to make the convention more approachable and informative for those who may be interested in the subject.

Secondly, I must explain that I believe I have made a slight mistake in regards to mandatory signs, and that the convention actually provides for 3 types of mandatory signs in some very limited circumstances. Section D firstly states "Unless provided otherwise, the signs shall be blue and the symbols shall be white or of a light colour, or, alternatively, the signs shall be white with a red rim and the symbols shall be black." The following paragraph states "However, instead of using sign D, 1a, sign D, 1b may be used notwithstanding the provisions of subsection I of this section. Sign D, 1b shall to be black with a white rim and a white symbol." A visual example can then be seen on page 107. This lumps both the blue circle mandatory signs and red circle mandatory signs, which I have until now labelled as "Type A" and "Type B", as properly both under "Type A", and that "Type B" is actually for black rectangular signs with white arrows. This seems to only apply to mandatory direction signs. This type of sign does not appear to be very common at all. I have found some photos in Central America ([7], [8]), although to me these read more as permissive signs than mandatory signs, showing the directions you are allowed to go at the intersection. Of course, some people would argue that the difference between "You are only allowed to turn left" and "You must turn left" is splitting hairs. This would require me to rename the signs I currently have listed as "Type A" and "Type B" to "Type Aa" and "Type Ab" or something along those lines. This also conflicts with most of the Americas, which also uses this style of sign to inform of a one way street rather than to say "you must turn right." Very messy, and I do not know how to resolve it.

Thirdly, in regards to the origin of mandatory signs as we now recognise them, that is certainly curious. Especially considering that for a time in Europe blue circles were actually warning signs! But they seem to have switched over to being mandatory by the 1930s. The blue circles were probably championed most by France, whilst the red circles by Germany, although idiosyncratic versions remained in other countries for quite some time such as Sweden and Romania. The connection between countries that have used Type B however, Germany, Ireland, Latin America, is far harder to discern. How much one country was influenced by another is unclear.

In regards to the pre-Worboys signs, we do have a limited sample thanks to The Navigators. I would like to be able to upload all of them at some point, but that is more difficult considering many of the symbols don't have proper drawings (the torch, the children...), the unusual typeface, and because they are in the Imperial system of measurement.

The draft convention is certainly interesting. I tend to agree that it is for the best that the United States did not end up influencing the convention to the extent they would have wanted to. The symbols within that document are also interesting. The children symbol is identical to the Chilean version, and the roadworks symbol is identical to the Irish version. There are a few other symbols that are clearly borrowed from already established signs as well.

One last thing to share for now and just for fun, I have a little paper of historic signs used in Venezuela (I do wish I could find a higher resolution version). Notice the danger sign. Instead of using an exclamation mark or saying "PELIGRO / DANGER", it has this odd repeat pattern which makes me think of hypno eyes.

That's about all I have for now. Thanks again for the documents you provided. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thanks for your response ! It gives me a lot to ponder over... A few short remarks addressing some of your your points:

1. I had noticed the somewhat unexpected Vienna Convention "D, 1b" signs before but did not give them much further thought. Now that you have thankfully provided me with two pictures of them in use (both from Costa Rica !), I am convinced to have found the reason for their inclusion in the Convention: they correspond exactly to the signs in the Central American Traffic Signs Agreement concluded in 1958 with the first edition of the corresponding manual having appeared already in 1958, followed by a second edition in 1963 (and later editions in 1979, 2000 and 2014). So the first two editions of the manual appeared long before 1968, and the official text of the Central American Agreement had already been in force for ten years in 1968. In the latest 2014 edition, the two examples given for these signs are numbered R-15-11 and R-15-12. The Central American one-way-street (and "double-way-street") signs look similar, but with the obligatory legend "UNA VIA" (or "DOBLE VIA").

Mexico, on the other hand, uses (only slightly MUTCD-influenced) "Type B" mandatory signs.

The Vienna sign "D, 1b" should therefore be interpreted as an inclusion of established Central American usage.

2. In my opinion, we should continue using the terms "Type A" and "Type B" for the two main models of mandatory signs, especially because they allow for a very practical and useful parallelism with "Type A" and "Type B" warning signs. Renaming them to "Type Aa" and "Type Ab" would only be confusing and overly complicated. Let's call the Central American directional mandatory signs "Type C" for convenience and assign to them a special colour on the map (i.e. a mixture of "Type C" directional mandatory signs, some "Type B" mandatory signs, but also an extremely noticeable MUTCD influence on many regulatory signs that are neither of "Type A" nor "Type B", but clear copies of MUTCD signs).

3. My idea of establishing "prototypical systems of reference" (and "countries of reference" that use a certain model in its most pure form) is of course not limited to "Vienna Type A", "Vienna Type B" and "MUTCD". Whenever a particular country deliberately, consistently and systematically (and not only based on "chaos", indifference, coincidence or other, for instance socio-economic, factors that lie outside the confines of road traffic law sensu stricto) uses an idiosyncratic system or a deliberate mixture of various other systems, it should be treated as a model sui generis. This includes for example Argentina and the SADC systems, but is by no means limited to them.

4. Blue discs as warning signs are based on the very first Paris Convention of 1909 (pictures of them can be found in Annex D). The circular shape of these signs was replaced by the triangular one by the second Paris Convention of 1926 that says in Article 9:

"Each of the contracting States undertakes to see that, in so far as lies in its power, there shall be placed, along the roads, to give notice of dangerous places, only those signs which are given in Annex F to the present Convention. These signs are inscribed on plates in the form of a triangle, each State undertaking, as far as possible, to reserve exclusively the triangular form for these signs and to forbid the use of that form in all cases in which it might cause confusion with the signs in question. The triangle is, in principle, equilateral, each side being at least 0 m. 70 in length. […] The system of triangular signs will be brought into force in each State as soon as the new signs are erected or the existing ones are renewed." (Pictures are included in Annex F.)

5. The royal decree on which the Swedish signs from 1931 to 1951 were based can be found on the internet, as well as the royal decree from 1951 replacing them with signs based on the Geneva Protocol of 1949 to which Sweden had been one of the original signatories and which it ratified on 25 February 1952. The new signs in 1951 are a consequence of the Geneva Protocol coming into force in Sweden.

6. The Romanian signs of 1950/1957 are peculiar indeed. It will require more research, but I can definitely discern a certain French influence on their style (note, for example, that the yellow background in the original scanned Commons files is lighter than in the files created by Alex:D and very much resembles the French "crème" colour). Which is not overly surprising because of the historically very strong ties between Romania and France, which remained also after 1945.

Nevertheless, these Romanian signs also include very idiosyncratic features not present in French signs of the times (nor any others that I know of) and are highly interesting. Romania ratified the Geneva Protocol on 26 January 1961, which explains why the signs were changed to "international" standards in 1961.

7. Basically, there is only one other country left in Europe where I am not entirely sure how its signs looked like before ratifying the Geneva Protocol in February 1963 – Bulgaria. But based on my personal inferences I strongly tend to believe that Bulgaria used Geneva-style signs already before 1963, though it would certainly be nice to find definite prove for this assumption.

8. I believe the reason why Germany decided to use "Type B" mandatory signs in 1934/37 is pretty obvious: They wanted to reserve the colour blue (and white-on-blue signs in particular) for the motorway signs that were introduced practically at the same time in the 1930s, as soon as Germany had started to built its large network of "Reichsautobahnen". These motorways exclusively used white-on-blue signs that had been designed for this very purpose. Perhaps not coincidentally, the first plans to built national highways started to take shape at the same time in … (you guessed it ;-) ) … Brazil !

9. Your comment "Of course, some people would argue that the difference between "You are only allowed to turn left" and "You must turn left" is splitting hairs" is great because it ties in perfectly to my trying to understand and analyse the difference as well as the overlap between the terms "permissive" and "mandatory" when it comes to road signs. I do not think that analysing this difference (or non-difference under certain conditions) is "splitting hairs". The best illustration (and one about which there is a huge amount of different questions I have wanted to ask you for weeks now, but will do so mainly in upcoming messages) for the importance of distinguishing between the subtleties of "permitted" versus "obligatory" is Canada.

You said in one of your earlier answers that you are not particularly fond of the green-circled signs used in Canada. Why is that so ? I personally think that, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, they actually look quite nice, but (and this is a big BUT !): their use (varying between the provinces and territories, see below) in many cases blurs the line between what is simply "permitted" (but not "obligatory") and what is indeed "mandatory", thereby potentially causing serious confusions.

10. Given that it is the provinces (and territories) that decide over the design of road signs in Canada, the non-use of green-circled directional ("turn control") mandatory signs in Ontario (in contrast to all other provinces and territories) especially caught my attention.

Book 5 of the Ontario Traffic Manual states: "The purpose of turn control signs is to indicate the prohibition of specific turns or manoeuvres that are indicated symbolically on the signs using arrows and the red interdictory symbol. Examples of prohibited turns or manoeuvres include right turns, left turns, U-turns and straight-through movements. […] Information on permissive signs is available in the Highway Traffic Act, but the use of these types of signs is not recommended for turn control."

Compare that with what the Manual of Standard Traffic Signs & Pavement Markings of British Columbia has to say about the very same problem: "The main consideration in selecting the appropriate turn control sign is to optimize driver intuition. The following are some general guidelines for selecting these signs: […] It is desirable to indicate to the motorist what they must do rather than what they cannot do."

These two rules and the respective reasonings for their choice given in the two manuals are diametrically opposed to one another. Does this mean that drivers in Vancouver have a completely different "traffic psychology" than those in Toronto ? ;-)))

11. As mentioned above, there are many more remarks on Canada to come… Right now I would just like to ask you one additional question: Is there any way to acquaint oneself with the MUTCDC (the new 6th edition as well as earlier ones) without having to pay $ 750 ?

The Venezuelan "hypno eyes" are great. Maybe they changed the sign because it actually rather created dangers than warn about them because of all the hypnotised, mind-altered drivers it caused ? :-)))


Juvand (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I still have not received any answer from User:Gohkenytp723 about their assertion that the member countries of the East African Community switched from Type B to Type A mandatory signs, and the link they provided is still not working. But I have found the file in question through the Wayback Machine.

This PDF document is a bit confusing as it does show Vienna Type B mandatory signs to be in use in most EAC countries and recommends their uniform adoption by EAC members that had not used them by the time the document was prepared.

If this were indeed the case, then there would have been no switch from Type B to Type A, but rather most countries would had been using Type B signs already, whereas others (especially the former Belgian-administered mandate territories – or colonies, to use a term that much better reflects the reality of the League of Nations mandate territories – Burundi and Rwanda) may have even experienced a "reverse switch" from Type A to Type B (which would require a separate colour).

However, I am not sure that this was actually the case: In the document from 2012 that I linked, the SADC-RTSM (and therefore Type A mandatory signs) is explicitly recommended for adoption throughout the EAC. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to find out which document is the newer one (the Wayback Machine link is from 2015) and whether the Type B signs shown in the Wayback Machine file from 2015 are not simply printing errors.

In general, I think it would be a good idea to double-check once again all the light blue coloured countries (apart from those in Europe which are certainly correct) to see whether there was actually a "switch" from Type B to Type A.

Just take the case of India and Bangladesh (and I only have the legal framework in mind now, not the actual situation on the ground): The Indian Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 (still unchanged in this regard) shows hand-drawn British pre-Worboys samples in its Schedule, but at the same time section 118 of the Act authorises the Central Government to prescribe new signs "in conformity with any International Convention relating to motor traffic to which the Central Government is for the time being a party" (see my long comment on the chaotic case of India above).

And that's where is gets really tricky: India had (as one of the very first countries) signed the Geneva Protocol on 29 December 1949, though it is unclear whether it also ratified it. In any case, the Geneva Protocol allows only white-on-blue ("Type A") mandatory signs. In 1949 (and most likely for decades beyond that date), most signs in India were for sure still based on British colonial usage. If India did indeed replace at least some signs with Geneva-prescribed ones, these new signs would have had to be white-on-blue ones in the case of mandatory signs.

Later, on 10 March 1980, India ratified the Vienna Convention, giving it freedom to choose between Type A and Type B mandatory signs. But if India had (at least in theory) been implementing Geneva-prescribed Type A signs already before that date, then a "switch" from Type B to Type A is highly unlikely.

Pakistan (then including Bangladesh), on the other hand, did not sign the Geneva Protocol. Just like in India, I assume that signs based on British colonial usage (with some unsystematic ad hoc modifications on a case-by-case basis) prevailed in Pakistan for decades after independence in 1947. Given the relatively early date of Bangladesh attaining independence in 1971, I am very uncertain whether any Geneva or Vienna-based signs had already been in existence in Western as well as Eastern Pakistan before 1971.

Pakistan ratified the Vienna Convention on 14 January 1980 and obviously opted for using Type B mandatory signs. But that says nothing about Bangladesh, which has not ratified the Vienna Convention until the present day, but very likely closely adhered to Indian practice from the moment it became independent in 1971 (a point in time when, as I described above, it is doubtful that signs not based on British colonial designs had already been erected, maybe with a few exceptions here and there). So, also in the case of Bangladesh a "switch" from Type B to Type A is not very likely in my opinion.

And then there are the even more confusing cases of, for example, Thailand, the Philippines and Nepal...

Please excuse the extreme verbosity and almost unbearable casuistics of this PS. It is deliberate to show my perception of the enormous obstacles standing in the way of establishing that a "switch" had taken place in many instances. My proposal would therefore be: When in doubt about the historical development, let's colour countries in the colour of the current regulations (which in itself is already an abstraction since the actual situation on the ground is in many countries totally chaotic).

One further remark on switches: I think the DPRK switched from Vienna Type A warning signs to the ones used in the People's Republic of China sometime in the 1990s or 2000s. This is based on the fact that still in 1987 the DPRK issued a series of stamps depicting traffic signs that clearly included Type A warning signs with a red border and white background.

By the way (and this hopefully concludes my remarks for now... ;-) ), I have found the previous (and first obligatory nationwide) regulations that were in force in Chile from 1983/1986 until the adoption of the current standard in 2014 and will share them with you as soon as possible (downloading and formatting them is a bit complicated). Fascinating about them is that Chile used a small number of Type A mandatory signs even back then (it still uses only a very limited number of Type A signs, the bulk of the mandatory signs of 2014 are just like the ones of 1983/86 of Type B). One reason for this (and also for similar cases in South America) is that the "Manual Interamericano de Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras" (first version: 1971, current version: 1991) generally prescribes the use of Type B mandatory signs – a practice all signatories to this agreement (apart from Argentina) adhere to. Only a small number of signs (in Chile, Peru and Bolivia) are Type A signs (and these signs are exclusively confined to cases not prescribed in the "Manual Interamericano"). Juvand (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hopefully really last PS for now: After having dug a little deeper into the (scant) resources on traffic signs in the members states of East African Community, I am almost absolutely convinced that the Type B mandatory signs shown in the document linked by User:Gohkenytp723 are due to a simple error and do not reflect the actual usage of such Type B signs neither in the present nor in the past. These countries have almost certainly been using Type A mandatory signs for a long time (and British / Belgian colonial signs before that).

Consequently, their colours should be reverted to dark blue on the map. Juvand (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but additional research requires one more PS:

I wrote above that the addition of sign "D, 1b" to the Vienna Convention was based on the development of the common Manual of Traffic Signs for Central America (1958, 1963, and later 1979, 1998, 2000 and 2014). While being correct, this statement is in need of expansion:

The adoption of sign "D, 1b" in Vienna was not only owed to the Central American Manual, but also to an US-led effort to develop an Inter-American Manual for all countries in the US "backyard" of Latin America and very heavily influenced by the MUTCD (just like the draft convention of 1952). This proposed Inter-American Manual should not be confused with was is today known as the "Manual Interamericano de Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras" that is mainly adhered to by Latin American countries in South America. Both have the same origin in the efforts imposed by the US on Latin America to develop a common manual, but the modern "Manual Interamericano" (approved in 1971, revised in 1991) is less heavily influenced by the MUTCD, relies more on independent solutions, is much closer to the Vienna Convention and very consistently uses Type B for both warning and mandatory signs.

The preparations for the Inter-American Manual started in 1960 and it was adopted in its final form in July 1968 in Washington, DC (!).

The main (or perhaps the only) "raison d'être" for this Manual (that never became actual law in any American country) was a last-minute effort of the United States and its "allies" of, at that time, predominantly fascist Latin American military dictatorships to present it in Vienna as an alternative (or, euphemistically speaking, an "addition" or "supplement") to the Vienna Convention that had already taken shape when the negotiations in Vienna began in autumn of 1968. In a way, it was a final effort to influence the outcome of the conference in favour of US wishes.

This effort failed, and sign "D, 1b" was basically the only concession made to it by the parties attending the UN conference in Vienna. Pro forma, the Inter-American Manual was mentioned a few times in the proceedings of the conference and was accepted as a "valuable proposal", but not much more came of it.

The US continued to exert its influence on Latin American road signs of course also after 1968 and up to the present day with varying degrees of success: very much so in regard to Central America, less so in regard to South America and Mexico, and with particularly little success in cases like Brazil, Chile, Argentina and others.

Below, please find attached a highly "sanitised" version in Spanish describing the events leading up to the development of the 1968 Inter-American Manual and its fate during the Vienna negotiations. The text is taken from the foreword to what nowadays is called the South American "Manual Interamericano de Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras" (1991 version), which, somewhat ironically, has emancipated itself much more (as described above) from MUTCD influence than its Central American counterpart.

La necesidad de establecer, por consenso mutuo entre los países de América, un conjunto de reglas y principios uniformes para los Dispositivos de control del Tránsito se había definido desde 1960 en el Octavo Congreso Panamericano de Carreteras, (VIII COPACA) reunido en Bogotá Colombia. En noviembre de 1964, la entonces comisión Técnica del Tránsito y Segunda de los COPACA designó a Venezuela presidente del subcomité encargado de elaborar el manual Interamericano de dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito de Calles y Carreteras, del cual formaban parte, además, Argentina, Brasil, Estados Unidos de América, Guatemala, México y Perú. El proyecto del Manual fue aprobado en la IV Reunión de la Comisión Técnica Tránsito y Seguridad en Washington, E.E.U.U. de América a fines de julio de 1968 y presentado en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre circulación por carretera y señalización vial, celebrada en Viena, Austria, entre noviembre y diciembre de ese mismo año. Venezuela presidió, en esa Conferencia, la Convención Principal N° 2, sobre señalización, precisamente como reconocimiento al desarrollo del Manual Interamericano, que fue aceptado como una alternativa dentro de la Comisión de Viena, salvo algunos detalles. Juvand (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: That's quite a bit to dicuss. I'll try to respond to each point.

Firstly, it shouldn't surprise me that you also noticed the perculiar "Type B" black rectangular mandatory signs, and that you also did not give it much thought since there is so little information. However, it looks like you actually have more information than I do. It is still something I will have to deal with, but I appreciate your assistance in what way to approach it. I had also thought of calling them "Type C", but felt that it stepped out of sync with the text of the convention itself. With your support though, I feel less uncomfortable with the idea.

I am aware that the blue circular warning signs were very early on in the history of standardised traffic signage in Europe, but it is still fascinating that they went with that shape first for warnings.

I do have copies of the Swedish decrees for 1931, 1937, 1951, 1961, and 1966. I do not have any copies of historical decrees for Romania, but Alex:D appears to have uploaded most of the relevant information along with their vector drawings. Unfortunately, I also have no historical information for Bulgaria.

The German choice to reserve the colour blue for the Reichsautobahnen would make some sense. It may also in part explain why so many other (western) European countries also have reserved blue for their motorway networks, at least on directional signage. The possibly/possibly not coincidental conection to Brazil is made even more curious.

I am glad that you also sense the subtle distinction (and sometimes non-distinction) between permissive and mandatory signage. Europe has managed to separate the two quite well, blue circles mean something you must do whilst blue rectangles mean something you may do, for example the difference between you must perform a U-turn and you may perform a U-turn. In Canada, and North America in general, the distinction is more muddied.

This does now get me onto the wider discussion about green circular mandatory signs in Canada. I believe that Quebec probably uses them most consistently as mandatory signs, although even they step out of line in a few instances. But the other provinces definitely are not concerned with mixing messages. For example, ending an overtaking restriction with a green circle that in other cases provides a mandatory message is not wise, considering it could also be misread as "you now must overtake". Also, whilst these signs are not currently used for mandatory directions in Ontario, they were sometime around the 1970s to maybe the early 1980s, but strangely combining the mandatory message of the green circle with a prohibitory textual explanation underneath ([9], [10]). It appears the other provinces also initially included the explanitory text, I presume to make the signs more understandable to the public. According to the Ontario charts I have seen, during this brief period when the green circles were introduced for mandatory directions the red prohibitory direction signs were removed. This was probably an attempt to follow the German and Italian model of now only using "positive" mandatory direction signs instead of the "negative" prohibitory ones. I suppose the reason Ontario went back on it is because they felt it was too confusing or the message wasn't threatening enough compared to a red circle with a slash. But the lack of consistency is far worse than you may imagine. The provinces do control their traffic signage, but the lack of a uniform national standard that must be followed by law has allowed corporations to also step in. Parks Canada, GO Transit, and the Toronto Transit Commission for example, all have their own signage manuals, which all follow their own rules. Parks Canada uses black circles with white symbols for mandatory signs, GO Transit uses black circles for mandatory but green circles for permissive (but some examples are actually mandatory), and the TTC uses green circles for permissive and blue circles for mandatory. It's a complete mess, and the black circle mandatory signs annoy me so much because they're so close to the blue circles most of the rest of the world uses and yet so wrong for no real reason. In fact to answer your question, that's the main reason I strongly dislike the green cicle mandatory signs in general. Three quarters of the world uses a uniform standard, and we step away from it for no real reason or need. The other issue is that to me green has never been a mandatory colour. "Red means stop/bad, green means go/good" is the way we all learn to associate these two colours from childhood, not "green means you must do this action".

In regards to the MUTCDC, other than the examples uploaded by Denelson83, I am not aware of any way to become acquainted with the publication that doesn't involve $$$. I asked Denelson83 to share their copies with me and they were very reluctant, perhaps afraid that I would "take over" their project. I am not impressed with a private comany "guiding" our signage though, and would much prefer the federal government create a uniform, internationally recognisable and conforming standard along the lines of the TSRGD. I'd even do the work for them, for a modest fee and a few assistants Nonetheless, I would like to purchase the MUTCDC at some point, but I have so many things on my waiting list I don't know when I will get to it.

The overlap between SADC and EAC is a bit difficult. Tanzania is the only country that is a member of both organisations. The Tanzanian highway code appears to be an identical copy of the SADC-RTSM, with a few idiosyncratic additions. EAC does have its own effort to harmonise their traffic signs, and I am assuming you have a copy of the same document I do. It also appears to mostly copy from the SADC-RTSM, although with a few differences, such as Type B mandatory direction signs. I am not certain about how reliable the inserted images are. The only countries in southern Africa which I know used Type B for certain is Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

I am willing to take another look at which countries switched from one to the other. I will change India to dark blue, however I still feel that Banglaesh should be light blue, as a former part of Pakistan, until evidence otherwise is found. For Thailand, I have solid documentation that they did use Type B before switching to Type A. The Philippines remains a little more tricky. But we can continue to work on this in the future.

North Korea definitely made a switch from red triangular warning signs to the Chinese model at some point, since there are stamps and many drawings of the older signs. My suspicion however is that it was more a matter of economics (again, a impoverished country importing signs from their only major source of support) than a conscious decision.

Thank you also for the additional information you have provided. I would also be very interested in viewing what copies you have of the many documents you have listed. Please let me know if I have missed anything important. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thank you four answer !

Because of time constraints just a very short response to certain points for now (more to come later):

1. I have two documents referring to EAC harmonisation efforts – the undated one by User:Gohkenytp723 that can only be found as a 2015 Wayback Machine link, and the "Final Report" of the EAC BICO, containing a chapter that basically repeats what the other document says, but with one crucial difference: The first document (and I am really convinced that this is the reason for the confusion !) erroneously contains Type B signs although it constantly refers to the SADC-RTSM and the Tanzanian GTS as the basis for the images contained in it and for EAC harmonisation. But the Tanzanian GTS definitely does not use and has never used Type B signs. The second document is almost identical, but instead of the erroneous Type B signs shows the correct SADC and Tanzanian signs (which it recommends for uniform adoption by all EAC member states). Please find the EAC documents and the Tanzanian GTS in the new folders I have added to my Jumpshare page.

I have also uploaded the 1983/1986 Chile traffic signs manual, the first nationwide obligatory standard in Chile's history.

In almost all countries of the Americas (from Canada to - at least - Uruguay; Argentina and Chile seem to be more uniform and less chaotic), a very large obstacle to finding definite answers is the fact that subnational entities make their own rules even if a nationwide obligatory standard is theoretically in place. In the countries that are not federations, like Paraguay, Uruguay and Panama, each municipality has its own signs catalog with often little to no regard to the standards prescribed by nationwide legislation. The same is true for "para-standards" set by private entities like the manufacturers of traffic signs. More about this quite serious problem standing in the way of a reliable and meaningful generalisation and systematisation in American (but also Asian, African and Oceanian) countries later...

I have also uploaded a large folder "Magyarország" (Hungary) with (almost) all important pieces of legislation regarding road signs, from the adoption of the first Paris Convention in 1910 up to the 2000s. The documents are in Hungarian of course, but most should be quite self-explanatory. In case you have any questions, please feel free to ask and I will provide you with a translation / explanation. One detail is very important: the green directional signs contained in the KRESZ (road traffic code) of 1975 that is largely still in force do not have black-on-green text, but white-on-green text. The black colour in the 1975 original seems to be either a mistake or due to printing considerations. Hungary adopted the Geneva Agreement of 1931 in 1937, but also used some very interesting idiosyncratic signs before 1945.

I plan to upload many more folders dedicated to individual countries or groups of countries in the near future.

Lastly, I have also uploaded various documents in connection with the heavily MUTCD-influenced Central American Manual as well as the 1991 version of the "Manual Interamericano de Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras" that despite its dubious origins I described yesterday is actually quite good in my opinion, has emancipated itself from the MUTCD and forms the backbone of most contemporary South American regulations. The Central American manual and the first, 1968/1971 version of the "Manual Interamericano" were the sources for the Vienna "D, 1b" signs. The 1991 version of the "Manual Interamericano" does not contain them anymore, using Type B signs instead, but the "D, 1b" signs are very much alive also in the latest 2014 edition of the Central American manual.

That's all for now... Here again the Jumpshare link: https://jmp.sh/jobHHgl

Juvand (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: I have uploaded a few Street View images of Central American directional mandatory (i.e. Vienna "D, 1b") signs in action in Guatemala. They show these signs combined with "ALTO" signs, standing alone, and – particularly interesting – combined with the corresponding prohibitory sign for the other direction. One sign seems to have originally had the legend "DOBLE VIA" written on it, the others do not. Somewhat strangely, I could not find any such "D, 1b" arrows pointing straight ahead so far, although at most of the intersections shown in the pictures driving straight ahead is permitted. This might or might not be a mere coincidence. In any case, the Central American Manual definitely uses also straight ahead arrows (in contrast to the two drawings in the Vienna Convention that show only right pointing and right-and-left pointing arrows respectively).

https://jmp.sh/jobHHgl

Juvand (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: I hope you have received the documents that I uploaded. Did you already have time to take a look at them ?

I have continued to dig deeper into the question of the origin of Type B mandatory (and also warning) signs, especially in non-American countries, and I think I have found a convincing solution to the "Irish question" (well, not the Irish question – this would be slightly beyond my capacities – but the origin of Type B signs in the Republic of Ireland ;-))) ). If you are interested I will write a more comprehensive comment on it and upload several documents (as well as new country-specific folders).

Juvand (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Juvand: Thank you for the many documents you have shared, they are greatly appreciated.

I did have the initial copy of the EAC report, but not the final report. I agree with your assesment that the initital document with Type B mandatory signs was due to a mistake of some sort, and that these countries did not ever use Type B. It is also interesting that EAC is working towards harmonisation of the SADC-RTSM, when only Tanzania is a member of SADC. So the other members of EAC are basically harmonising to SADC by extension of Tanzania. The progress of that harmonisation is unclear however, since Uganda and Kenya have also published their own national standard which differ greatly. Perhaps those standards have been put aside in the years since their publication.

The various Hungarian documents are wonderful and will allow for a lot of additions. I believe you will have noticed the early post-war circular stop sign. I was curious enough about it that I did some extra searching and was able to find an image in better resolution and colour, although sadly no photos.

The two competing Latin American manuals will allow for a lot of historical research. The Chilean manual will also allow for some historical representation when I do someday get back to working on Chile.

In regards to your screenshots in Guatemala, I believe you are mistaken and that they are not being used as Type C mandatory signs, but rather as one way signs (or two way in some instances). They are missing the "Una Via" inscription, but the one way signs in Canada, Chile, and Mexico also lack the inscription. As you noted in one of the photos, there is a one way cross street, but drivers can clearly also proceed straight ahead as well. In another photo with the one way sign combined with a no right turn sign, it is saying "this is a one way street and that is why you can not turn into it" (a form of double re-assurance in the hope that that drivers will take note and obey). However, the lines are a bit blurred in some cases, for example this photo. The road appears to be divided with a rather wide central reservation, so drivers must turn right onto it. In that sense it could be interpreted as a mandatory turn right sign since turning right is the only option. There are examples of this misuse here in Canada as well. Here is one in my home town, exiting from a parking lot. The road is two way, but the raised reservation extends too far to the left of the exit to properly perform a left turn. Drivers must exit to the right. You can see that a one way sign is improperly being used along with the no left turn sign. It is being used as a mandatory sign even though it is not, and saying the road is one way even though it is not, breaking two rules which annoys me twice as much. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Thank you very much for your interesting response.

Unfortunately, I was unable to open the three photos you sent me. When I click on the links, I receive an "access denied" message.

Because of time constraints, I'll answer you in several parts beginning now with my proposed solution to the "Irish question" and related uploads in the folder "Éire / Ireland" as well as new folder "Polska" including (almost) all Polish traffic sign regulations from 1921 (adoption of Paris 1909) up to the 2000s and adding some additional files to the folder "1953 Draft Convention". More files will be added to these three folders and additional folders will be uploaded soon.

Concerning Ireland – The following text is based on an e-mail I wrote to Chris from roads.org.uk yesterday with some additions and modifications (parts deriving from this mail are in italics [and therefore contain some redundancies in our context], additional remarks in normal text).

Your series of five articles entitled "From War to Worboys" is great and highly interesting, but contains one rather serious mistake:

On pages 4 and 5, you repeatedly make mention of the Vienna Convention in connection with the Worboys Report and the subsequent fundamental reform of UK traffic signs.

Particularly, you refer to the signs called "Protocol" signs in the extremely interesting image www.roads.org.uk/sites/default/files/articles/from-war-to-worboys/25.jpg as Vienna Convention signs.

In fact, the "Protocol" signs mentioned there do not refer to the Vienna Convention (that was only adopted in 1968, years after the Worboys Report), but rather to the predecessor of the Vienna Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Road Signs and Signals of 1949.

After the Worboys reform, the UK became a party to this Geneva Protocol in 1966.

The signs called "Draft Convention" signs in image 25.jpg, on the other hand, refer to the US-inspired and US-led efforts to impose its MUTCD-based system (but with the use of much more symbols and pictograms) on the United Nations. The United States managed to get a "Draft Convention" on the worldwide unification of traffic signs adopted in 1952/53 by a working group of the UN Economic and Social Council.

This "Draft Convention" started a veritable "not-so-cold war" between supporters of this proposal (mainly Anglo-Saxon countries and countries in Latin America) on the one hand, and, on the other hand, mainly continental European/Asian countries (above all France and the USSR, and also the Nordic countries as well as practically all countries in Southern, Central, Western and Eastern Europe) who wished to prepare an international convention based on an organic development of the system put in place by the 1949 Geneva Protocol.

In the meantime between 1953 and 1968, some countries were convinced that the 1953 Draft Convention would eventually be adopted (or at least hoped for this being the case) and started applying it, with a famous (and the only European) example being the Republic of Ireland which adopted the Draft Convention signs in 1956 and again in 1962 and – apart from the mandatory signs that were changed to white-on-blue Vienna Convention ones in 1997 – still uses them up to the present day. That is the reason why the Republic of Ireland is the only country in Europe using American-style diamond-shaped yellow warning signs. A number of Latin American countries also expressed a strong preference for the Draft Convention over the Geneva Protocol (the most important one being Brazil which had used such signs already since 1941 and, on the occasion of adopting a new road code in 1966, made explicit reference in it to the Draft Convention as the basis for its traffic signs system).

Additional remark: I originally had found the 1953 Draft Convention exactly because of it being mentioned in the Brazilian road code of 1966. The 1968 Brazilian traffic signs regulations I have already uploaded before were meant to be a national application, expansion and specification of the 1953 Draft Convention system prescribed in 1966.

As the comments in the image 25.jpg show, some people in the United Kingdom also clearly favoured the introduction of signs based on the 1953 Draft Convention and came out in clear opposition to adopting a system based on the 1949 Geneva Protocol.

In the end, however, the Worboys Report recommended the introduction of signs according to the Geneva Protocol, and so they were adopted by the UK in 1964.

The United States, on the other hand, tried to undermine the developing consensus of most non-American / non-Anglo-Saxon countries (that culminated in the adoption of the Vienna Convention in 1968) up to the very last minute, for example by drafting an "Inter-American Manual" as late as July 1968 that was proposed to the conference in Vienna in autumn of the same year as an alternative to what had already been prepared as the final draft of the Vienna Convention. The parties attending the Vienna conference slightly modified the text of the Convention by allowing certain alternative designs for warning and mandatory signs (those came to be known as "Type B" signs) as a means to convince the US, other Anglo-Saxon and Latin American countries and, last but not least, Ireland to sign the Convention.

Some Latin American countries did subsequently indeed sign the Vienna Convention, but the United States as well as other Anglo-Saxon countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have never done so. The US repeatedly affirmed since 1968 that is has no intention of ever adhering to the Vienna Convention.

The United Kingdom is a notable exception in this regard when it comes to Anglo-Saxon countries (which, of course, was only possible after the implementation of the Worboys reform): after it had signed the Geneva Protocol in 1966, it also was among the original signatories of the Vienna Convention of 8 November 1968.

Additional remark: So, in the 1950s Ireland wanted to get rid of the outdated British pre-Worboys system, but at the same time did not want to join the common continental European system established by the Geneva Protocol of 1949. Instead, the responsible entities in Ireland opted for an adoption of "American"-style (warning, mandatory and prohibitory) signs based on the 1953 Draft Convention, obviously believing or hoping that this Draft Convention would eventually replace the Geneva Protocol.

They have stuck to this decision up to the present day, save for the mandatory directional signs that were replaced by Type A signs in 1997.

This 1997 switch was not so much owed to wanting to follow UK and/or continental European practice, but rather to the fact that the official traffic signs regulations from 1956/1962 to 1996 had prescribed only four (Type B) mandatory directional signs (sign numbers 207, 208, 209 and 210 in the 1962 regulations). But, for example, "Turn left / right ahead" and similar important signs had not been included in the regulations.

These gaps (and the generally quite chaotic history of Irish road regulations) led to a massive import of Type A mandatory directional signs from the UK. In other words, the 1997 regulations just enacted what had already been a widespread practice for years, if not decades. Three of the four old Type B mandatory directional signs were still allowed as alternatives to the new Type A ones in a transitional period up to 2012.

I have uploaded the Annual Reports 1956-1957 and 1962-1963 of the Department of Local Government of the Republic of Ireland containing information about the adoption of the 1956 and 1962 traffic signs regulations respectively. The 1956-1957 report (on page 42) does so by explicitly mentioning the "recommendations of the United Nations' Organisation for an international uniform system of road signs", an expression that is meant to denote the 1953 Draft Convention, as the basis for the new Irish traffic signs system.

There is much more to say about Ireland and even more about other topics, most of all the extraordinarily complicated question about the use of Type C mandatory directional signs vs. "one-way (or "two-way") street" signs in the Americas (I wholeheartedly agree with you that especially in Latin American countries the lines between these two groups of signs are very much blurred, which causes enormous obstacles to classifying them correctly and unequivocally – more on my latest observations and inferences to come), but I'm afraid I will have to postpone that to my next message(s).

https://jmp.sh/jobHHgl