(tragic)
this is so sad bros :,(

>>511027356 (OP)
>wikipedia slop flag

grim

>>511027498
sorry what?

>>511027356 (OP)
how about some context you zoomer fuck

>>511027558
wikipedia creates copyright-free images of flags and coat of arms. they are usually ugly slop. people use them everywhere though. you can find the wikipedia flags and coat of arms all over cheap merch. people don't know better, so they use the wikipedia flags (which are at the top of search results) instead of proper flags with high-quality details. it's tragic because some rare flags and coat of arms are now known only by their wikipedia recreation and it has become hard to find alternative recreations

wikipedia once fucked up the vatican city flag by colouring it red instead of white. the vatican itself started using the red version pushed by wikipedia. thankfully it was eventually corrected by actual vexillologists. wikipedia did something similar to the scots language– where a teenager from the US who didn't speak scots at all was rewriting entire articles in fake scots. people who didn't know better thought this was how the language looked. even the scottish government started using the fake scots by this retarded kid. it was a whole scandal that may have permanently scarred the language. video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8wfSpSAASQ

the serbian coat of arms looks like slop you'd find on wikipedia.

>>511027965
the Serbian coat of arms has a pug face now
>>511028202
I see, well I did get the images from looking at historical coat of arms of Serbia on wikipedia, are you saying theyre not the right ones?

>>511028345
>are you saying theyre not the right ones?
they are the right ones, i checked before posting that rant. the point is that the serbian govt drew a bad coat of arms that looks like slop

https://www.srbija.gov.rs/tekst/en/130128/national-symbols.php

this isn't just serbia too. many other countries have these cheap-looking flags now. idk why it's so hard for governments to pay a good artist to design something nice

>>511028590
arent most coat of arms drawn in a flat style? (or is that not the issue)
can you post one that you do like?

>>511028202
There are a lot of make believe things on Wikipedia. It's really the uneducated poorfag reference, a social media site, not an encyclopedia. But because it comes with a free license, AI is fed this inaccurate slop and it will be perpetuated.

>>511027356 (OP)
Sad state of affairs. Its over.

>>511028797
flat style is fine when stylised and done right. but here's an example of a highly-detailed coat of arms. wikipedia doesn't attempt to replicate small details at all. it's mass-produced slop. when you browse the internet long enough you notice them everywhere. they're accessible and copyright-free so it's only nature for this to happen

>>511031084

the resolute desk

now compare those renditions to this wikipedia slop that google puts in the very first result

>>511031365
I mean which one are you most likely to put on a flag?

similarly, here are some really nice, artistic, well-drawn interpretations of the australian coat of arms

>>511031498
yeah thats another reason wikipedia flags are everywhere. it's cheaper to print them. embroidered flags are more expensive. but even then you don't necessarily need to print the wikipedia flags. I don't necessarily have a problem with flat, minimal designs, it's just the wikipedia ones are so bad

and this is the wikipedia slop

>>511031948
I just feel like this is the standard version and then the nicer more detailed ones would be the expectation
Like a movie adaptation of a cartoon series