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: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I propose to update the old arms, that were made by or based on drawings by Ssolbergj to these files.
There are in the same style that Ssolbergj currently uses. Adelbrecht ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 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)
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 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)
I hadn't seen this debate before my intervention on Fry's wall. I just like to precise one thing or two about official texts. The two versions of the state arms shown by fry are indeed differently illustrated; let's try to understand why.
The only reliable information of these texts is therefore the blazon, which mentions double-tailed lions as supporters of the state CoA. The 1972 annexe showed erroneous arms. It was corrected by the 1993 annexe, and the law took note of this possibility of an error of the graphist by mentionning that these annexes are STRICTLY ILLUSTRATIVE. I would conclude that seeking for an "official type" only on the hand of graphism is not satisfying for nowaday blazonings, which are very (I would say too much) precise. I would also conclude that medieval and early modern heraldry is definatly much more interesting because it does not implies long juridic demonstrations.
As for the monarch, things are much more simple, as we have two coherent laws (feb and jun 2001) and an explicative notice (2006) mentionning two different supporting lions : a double-tailed (luxembourg) lion on the left, to match with the luxembourg quarter, and a single-tailed (nassau) lion on the right, to match with the nassau quarter.
Katepanomegas ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna be blunt here:
Both of you, shut the fuck up and start acting like adults.
You're both acting like terribly spoiled children saying "Naa naaa naaa I'm right you're wrong oh and you're a meanie meanhead! You're poop!" It needs to stop right fucking now or I am finding an admin to block you both indefinitely until you both come to your senses. I offered at the incredibly premature ArbCom case to mediate this dispute between the two of you. I am still willing to do so. But you both need to grow the fuck up before you get fucking blocked. Is that crystal fucking clear? → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop pretending to be innocent of insulting and calling names. I did start this issue. The problem is that we're both stubborn, and that I'm terrible at explaining stuff clearly. English is not my first language, a lot of nuance and subtlety goes lost in translation. But that's no reason to put all the blame on me, Fry. You were at least as rude as I were. I'm terrible at explaining, but you seem terrible at trying to listen to my attempts to do so. I have no further intent of continuing with this waste of time. And to be honest and rude, I was right. And I won't apologize for defending the truth. But again, I have no further intent to continue this waste of time, with issues that should never have happened. Adelbrecht ( talk) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Roux, I have no intent in taking this further. I've said that I'm stubborn, and that I'm bad at explaining things. I'm not going to apologize to him when he keeps painting himself as a victim. I seriously doubt the fact that this mentality is going to change, especially because he has now added some junk about 'equality'. Because this mentality will probably not change, and I still have a stubborn sense of dignity, this discussion will go nowhere, and it would be a further waste of my time, and also Fry's time. Also, I don't need a mediator, especially someone who has up to now sworn more than all the rudest remarks Fry and I have shared. Adelbrecht ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not everyone, who is interested in it has seen it till now, but on Commons I started a discussion about the right colors for this COA. The only official things I found shows a COA with a "greyish" silver, not white, as it is here. But in 2011
User:Fry1989 said the "Community is asking for it white" - so what have been the reason for that change? Only the fact, that silver in COA has to be white? Come on, there are a lot of official COAs, where silver isn't white. And at least if say rules are rules, don't matter what the offical webpage of the Grand Duke and other things says, the
(an the other files related to it) has another problem: gold is not yellow, so it shouldn`t it be changed to this version:
!?
There is more than one question left. So, if you can help or have some facts I/we haven`t found, please follow us to commons (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Armoiries_Luxembourg_Bourbon_avec_ornements.svg)!
*SGR* (
talk)
09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact; in heraldry, 'Argent' represents silver, and 'Or' represents gold. They are just conventionally represented as white and yellow. Hence the reason Or and Argent are referred to as the heraldic 'metals. Indeed, Arthur Fox-Davies; in his book 'Complete Guide To Heraldry' makes the argument that 'White' is an heraldic tincture separate from Argent.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
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: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I propose to update the old arms, that were made by or based on drawings by Ssolbergj to these files.
There are in the same style that Ssolbergj currently uses. Adelbrecht ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 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)
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 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)
I hadn't seen this debate before my intervention on Fry's wall. I just like to precise one thing or two about official texts. The two versions of the state arms shown by fry are indeed differently illustrated; let's try to understand why.
The only reliable information of these texts is therefore the blazon, which mentions double-tailed lions as supporters of the state CoA. The 1972 annexe showed erroneous arms. It was corrected by the 1993 annexe, and the law took note of this possibility of an error of the graphist by mentionning that these annexes are STRICTLY ILLUSTRATIVE. I would conclude that seeking for an "official type" only on the hand of graphism is not satisfying for nowaday blazonings, which are very (I would say too much) precise. I would also conclude that medieval and early modern heraldry is definatly much more interesting because it does not implies long juridic demonstrations.
As for the monarch, things are much more simple, as we have two coherent laws (feb and jun 2001) and an explicative notice (2006) mentionning two different supporting lions : a double-tailed (luxembourg) lion on the left, to match with the luxembourg quarter, and a single-tailed (nassau) lion on the right, to match with the nassau quarter.
Katepanomegas ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna be blunt here:
Both of you, shut the fuck up and start acting like adults.
You're both acting like terribly spoiled children saying "Naa naaa naaa I'm right you're wrong oh and you're a meanie meanhead! You're poop!" It needs to stop right fucking now or I am finding an admin to block you both indefinitely until you both come to your senses. I offered at the incredibly premature ArbCom case to mediate this dispute between the two of you. I am still willing to do so. But you both need to grow the fuck up before you get fucking blocked. Is that crystal fucking clear? → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop pretending to be innocent of insulting and calling names. I did start this issue. The problem is that we're both stubborn, and that I'm terrible at explaining stuff clearly. English is not my first language, a lot of nuance and subtlety goes lost in translation. But that's no reason to put all the blame on me, Fry. You were at least as rude as I were. I'm terrible at explaining, but you seem terrible at trying to listen to my attempts to do so. I have no further intent of continuing with this waste of time. And to be honest and rude, I was right. And I won't apologize for defending the truth. But again, I have no further intent to continue this waste of time, with issues that should never have happened. Adelbrecht ( talk) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Roux, I have no intent in taking this further. I've said that I'm stubborn, and that I'm bad at explaining things. I'm not going to apologize to him when he keeps painting himself as a victim. I seriously doubt the fact that this mentality is going to change, especially because he has now added some junk about 'equality'. Because this mentality will probably not change, and I still have a stubborn sense of dignity, this discussion will go nowhere, and it would be a further waste of my time, and also Fry's time. Also, I don't need a mediator, especially someone who has up to now sworn more than all the rudest remarks Fry and I have shared. Adelbrecht ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not everyone, who is interested in it has seen it till now, but on Commons I started a discussion about the right colors for this COA. The only official things I found shows a COA with a "greyish" silver, not white, as it is here. But in 2011
User:Fry1989 said the "Community is asking for it white" - so what have been the reason for that change? Only the fact, that silver in COA has to be white? Come on, there are a lot of official COAs, where silver isn't white. And at least if say rules are rules, don't matter what the offical webpage of the Grand Duke and other things says, the
(an the other files related to it) has another problem: gold is not yellow, so it shouldn`t it be changed to this version:
!?
There is more than one question left. So, if you can help or have some facts I/we haven`t found, please follow us to commons (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Armoiries_Luxembourg_Bourbon_avec_ornements.svg)!
*SGR* (
talk)
09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact; in heraldry, 'Argent' represents silver, and 'Or' represents gold. They are just conventionally represented as white and yellow. Hence the reason Or and Argent are referred to as the heraldic 'metals. Indeed, Arthur Fox-Davies; in his book 'Complete Guide To Heraldry' makes the argument that 'White' is an heraldic tincture separate from Argent.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)