Talk:Coat of arms of Luxembourg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I propose to update the old arms, that were made by or based on drawings by Ssolbergj to these files.
- Greater Coat of arms
- Middle Coat of arms
- Lesser Coat of arms
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coat of arms of Luxembourg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
There are in the same style that Ssolbergj currently uses. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. There are several reasons why they are not acceptable. Fry1989 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are no reasons why it is not acceptable. Hating a certain style is not a valid reason. I've seen you bullying Ssolbergj with a similar issue, on his own file, even abusing your admin powers for it. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, and this has nothing to do with a certain style. It's about accuracy. There are gonna be people who disagree with you, that doesn't give you the right to throw around terms like "bully", and call them admin power abusers when they AREN'T EVEN ADMINS!. If you really cared about the article, you would want it to be as accurate as possible. These versions are not. Fry1989 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I clicked on the wrong link. My bad. In any case, I suggest you leave heraldry to people who at least understand it. There is no official style, and the version you prefer lacks details in the order. If you want to be accurate, you will need to undo your reverts. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Per my talk, you do not have the right to push ancient rules upon modernity. That mentality is not welcome and I will not put up with it. I will not allow you to force these inaccurate versions upon the article without consensus, and will seek article protection if I must. Fry1989 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- No. There are several reasons why they are not acceptable. Fry1989 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There are rules for heraldry, and there is heraldic tradition in countries. Your original (lack of) research is not welcome. You are forcing inaccurate versions. You lack knowledge about heraldry, and try to spread misconceptions and inaccurate designs. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, this is not a matter of style. I suggested these, and placed them here. I did not force this style on this article. Now, I do, because I have found that the previous versions contain mistakes. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one seeking the new style, YOU must find consensus. Those are the rules. If you do not stop, I will be forced to seek protection. This superiority complex you heraldist have is beyond arrogant. I don't have to be a well-versed heraldist to know when something doesn't look like how it is actually used by the Luxembourg Government. Fry1989 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- But you can't seem to do that either, otherwise you would have noticed the mistakes. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I have been given some links a couple to Luxembourg Government PDFs, on Commons. One shows both supporters as single-tailed, while the other shows them BOTH double-tailed. (HERE for single-tailed, and HERE for both double-tailed). So there's the proof that YOU'RE wrong, and that the rules of heraldry DON'T always have to be followed. So maybe you should loose this attitude that just because you're well-versed in some ancient tradition that you're somehow more right than poor uneducated me.
- For simplicity however, I have altered all the files which I support, to have both supporters (left & right) as single-tailed. Fry1989 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Les petites armoiries augmentées des supports: Deux lions d´or et couronnés du même, la tête contournée (regardants), armés et lampassés de gueules, la queue fourchue et passée en sautoir.
- One of those sources has a unclear image, I do seem to think that they did depict the double tail, but the pure black version made it unclear. But in any case, the law that it goes with does mention the "queue fourchu". The image is merely an illustration, it is the law that counts. And that text does say that the lions should have the "queue fourchu", double tail. You have been handed proof that I am right, Fry. Adelbrecht (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Update: And the stuff with a single supporter being double tailed, that's the arms of the monarch! Are you even paying attention to anything I've said or shown? Adelbrecht (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes yes, ignore the facts. You said that it's a "serious heraldic mistake" to have a right supporter with a double-tail, and I have shown you a government source showing that YOU are the one who is wrong. If you can't even be humble enough to admit that your wrong, I have nothing more to say to you. As for your "the image was unclear" excuse, nobody will believe that. Both sources I have provided above are explicitly clear, with the first showing them both single-tailed, the second showing them both double-tailed. Either get rid of your attitude that you're always right, IN SPITE of Government sources, and talk to me as an equal rather than a poor uneducated idiot, or leave me and this article alone. Your choice. Fry1989 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one seeking the new style, YOU must find consensus. Those are the rules. If you do not stop, I will be forced to seek protection. This superiority complex you heraldist have is beyond arrogant. I don't have to be a well-versed heraldist to know when something doesn't look like how it is actually used by the Luxembourg Government. Fry1989 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You are ignoring the facts. The sources you give show that you are wrong. Your only source is an unclear photocopy. Instead of admitting this, you keep ignoring all the facts. You need to get rid of your attitude that you are always right. Your own sources speak against you. Please read and review your own sources, or leave the article alone. It's your choice, Fry. I've tried explaining it to you, I've cited your sources, yet you refuse to listen. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're either blind, or too proud to admit that both my sources show either both supporters single-tailed or double-tailed. i have nothing more to say to you. If you continue to try and push the new unauthentic versions on this article without consensus, as the rules state, I will continue to revert you, and will be forced to seek file protection. My distaste has nothing to do with the rules of heraldry, or with certain stules. It is about authenticity, and matching official sources in their style as best we can. Just because you think a new style looks good, that doesn't mean it's right to replace the other versions("I like it" isn't accepted here), which are closer to the Arms in the style the Government uses them. Fry1989 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You are blind!!! You refuse to read your own sources! Don't be so proud of yourself, and get some glasses or something! I have tried correcting this, and you kept reverting to your own errors. Now, you've added even more errors! Are you doing this on purpose? Adelbrecht (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)