Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion request for all "coats of arms" so far created for pope Francis I. There are no official coats of arm yet, therefore, all of this is OR and has no encyclopedic use. All of these are similar, thus one deletion request should do it. --67.142.173.26 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Blason fictif du Pape François Ier.svg

[edit]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong, because it shows a pallium below the shield, but the real coat of arms does not. --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Too similar to other, more accurate versions of the arms. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escudo del Papa Francisco I.jpg

[edit]

This one is even used in two Wikipedias ATM! --67.142.173.26 15:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong in many aspects, compared to the real coat of arms (tiara, motto and many more aspects). --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fictional Coat of arms of Pope Francis.svg

[edit]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong, because it shows a pallium below the shield, but the real coat of arms does not. --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Extremely similar to existing and more accurate versions. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg

[edit]

 Keep Dude, we already just went through this less than two days ago at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personal coat of arms of Pope Francis.svg. It's a reasonable provisional extrapolation (until the official arms are announced), and it's perfectly fine as long as it's labelled as such. We already have thousands of "Special or fictional flags" and "Special or fictional coats of arms" images here on Commons, and this one is probably more useful than most. Furthermore WIKIMEDIA COMMONS DOES NOT HAVE A "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH POLICY"!!! (I really get tired of repeating this), so "original research" has nothing to do with image deletion here... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the fact that there's a Tiara on top is totally NPOV, isn't it? --67.142.173.24 20:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons doesn't have an "NPOV" policy as such either. Too bad that you're better at swearing and cursing than learning enough about how things are done here to be able to do anything constructive. AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conceivable way in which this picture (and the other ones, too) could be used in an encyclopedic manner. Commons isn't a free web space provider for people with agendas regarding what the next Pope's arms should look like. --67.142.173.25 01:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- It isn't an "agenda", it's a reasonable extrapolation based on the "papalization" of the coats of arms of the last few popes. We had extrapolations of what William and Kate's joined coat of arms would look like even before they were married, and those files weren't deleted either. In any case, the criteria for deciding whether an image should be kept or deleted from Commons is a little different from deciding whether something should be included in a Wikipedia article, and this file was kept in the last deletion discussion. If you had done minimal homework on Commons policies and/or previous discussions about this image, then you wouldn't have wasted people's time by opening a new deletion nomination two days after the last one was resolved. AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is an agenda. If you had done minimal homework on papal politics, you should know that whether or not this guy is gonna put a tiara on his arms is a highly politically charged question. --67.142.173.25 02:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, instead of yelling, maybe you could at least rename the files to avoid propagation on the web of erroneous information. Also remember that all files on Commons must « provide knowledge, instructional or informative ». — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Dude, this file was already renamed as a result of a previous deletion discussion two days ago. It's very annoying when people don't bother take minimal steps to inform themselves, and so end up wasting other people's time by re-raising issues that have already been resolved (for now)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as fictional and misleading. I am sure any decent uploaders won't mind but upload a depiction of the actual CoA in their preferred design soon. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep If the colours are corrected, it would just be a variant arms with the Papal Tiara, which is quite likely to show up, seeing as it did so under the previous pope. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong in many aspects, compared to the real coat of arms (tiara, motto and many more aspects). --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The external ornaments are different, which is the whole point of that image. Compare with Category:Coats of arms of Benedictus XVI (Tiara). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does have a "should have some conceivable use" policy, though. Otherwise people would just use it to host their holiday pix. We have thirteen coats of arms of Francis now? Seriously? If there is some systematic difference between the images, that is fine, but the reality is that people just keep piling them up for no reason. How many coats of arms of Francis is enough, how many is too much? Would we start deleting some at 50? 500? 5000? --Dbachmann (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's File:Signum Francisci.svg, which follows the official version most closely. There's File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg, which has a variation with a tiara in a different style. And then the rest are a bunch of vector and raster files based on the svg version of the previous Pope's arms, they could be reduced to one single file if needed. The three remaining raster files have a different style, but all lack proper sources and attribution anyway. My assessment would leave us with two or three different files: the official arms, the arms with tiara, and the arms in the style of Benedict XVI (with pallium I guess). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, there is an No-OR-policy, as self-created artwork is out of scope.--Antemister (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you added your comment in completely the wrong place. And (as unfortunately seems to be so often the case with you), you're completely wrong -- "No Original Research" and "not a webhost for personal artistic portfolios" are completely separate things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Since Commons doesn't have a "No Original Policy", that means that people are free to conduct original research to come up with within-scope graphics... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe Vatican official website explicitely depicts and descripts the mitre as the official symbol of the papal dignity. This is the blazon. Heraldry allows liberty of representation only whithin the limits of the blazon. Drawing anything else than a mitre is making a deceitful and, let say it, illegal depiction : the pope is not only the chief of the Roman church, he is also a head of state. Moreover an absolute and very personal monarchy. His decisions are laws, even in heraldry, and you cannot ignore them when drawing symbols of state. You may not agree with it and prefere an obsolete and fancyful depiction, but the law is the law. No room for anything else. Kathisma (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "deceitful" if it's misrepresented as having an official status which it doesn't actually possess. And your claims of illegality don't appear to make much sense. It's certainly not illegal under the laws of the United States, and I strongly doubt whether it's illegal in the country in which the uploader of the first-uploaded file version resides, in which case the alleged "illegality" (if any) is really not of the type which Commons needs to be concerned about. AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 08:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Herb papieża Franciszka I.png

[edit]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong, because it shows a pallium below the shield, but the real coat of arms does not. --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 08:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:StemmaPapaFrancesco.png

[edit]

 Delete No conceivable educational purpose. This image is wrong, because it shows a pallium below the shield, but the real coat of arms does not. --UV (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brasão do Papa Francisco.JPG[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 08:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Talk

[edit]


I've actually been considering nominating all 6 images in Coats of arms of Franciscus for a few days now, because they're all based on assumptions. I can't find any official depiction of the new Pope's coat of arms yet, so strictly speaking, they're all not to be trusted. He may decide to return to the traditional heraldry of popes, with the tiara, or he may do th estyle of Benedict and use a mitre, or he may even do something completely different all together. Also considering that Benedict's arms as pope were NOT the same as his arms as a cardinal, carrying over Francis' cardinal shield isn't even a trustworthy assumption. Honestly idk what to do, but once we know his official coat of arms, at least 3 if not 4 of these will be incorrect. Fry1989 eh? 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of them is official, but at least some of them are provisional reasonable extrapolations until an announcement is made -- and it's really not at all a constructive maneuver to renominate a file for deletion two days after it's survived a deletion request without offering any new useful valid information or arguments, except for a bunch of ignorant misconceptions about what Commons policies actually are ("original research" blather blather blather)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couldn't we use just the shield (without extra ornaments) for the time being until the arms are officially released? Tktru (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, considering Benedict's arms as pope was different from his arms as cardinal, even just using Francis' shield when he was cardinal is not a safe assumption. Anonmoos, I'm not condoning the IP's actions and claims. Fry1989 eh? 02:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

official reference now available

[edit]

Instead of further shouting etc., you might have a look at this official reference, published today: http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/03/18/news/30649.html . --Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Category:Coats of arms of Franciscus. --Túrelio (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About time. File:Signum Francisci I.svg is correct then, the rest and be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several of them can be saved by a simple color change of the star and grapes from white to yellow/gold... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
… unless they show a pallium below the shield, which does not belong there. --UV (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we need to save any, we really only need one of the real thing. Fry1989 eh? 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg can be kept, in relation to Category:Coats of arms of Benedictus XVI (Tiara), perhaps with another rename to File:Coat of Arms of Pope Francis (Unofficial variant with tiara).svg Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because some traditionalists don't want to accept that the Tiara is no longer on the papal arms. Sorry guys, it's not coming back, and Commons isn't here to support your POV. --206.188.60.100 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the only one drawing church politics into it, it rather seems you're the one trying to push a POV. I'm drawing parallels with the category I've linked to, which shows such a variation in photographs, and I'm quite certain the churches photographed aren't "traditionalist". There are a lot of less plausible fictional arms that have a place on Commons. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having a version of Benedict's with the papal tiara made sense because even though it wasn't official, his arms were still depicted that way some times with what appears to be semi-official sanction. It's unclear if such will be tolerated with Francis. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite likely it will appear in the Vatican Gardens soon. I doubt they'll bother changing the tiara this time around. :p In any case, I think it's prudent to keep it, but with a clear warning that it isn't official. And that's what this whole category is for anyway. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is unclear if it will be tolerated under Francis. It may happen, it may not. Fry1989 eh? 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is quite irrelevant, as it was clearly unintentional last time as well]. Per Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, and content and the existence of Category:Special or fictional coats of arms, and this not being a low quality file, this ought to be kept. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's very relevant. It happened under Benedict, so that's why we had the image. If it doesn't happen under Francis, then obviously his governance will have held tighter control over such things, and having one of his arms with the tiara would be wrong. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being "wrong" is what was covered in Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, and the arms of Benedict with tiara are just as wrong, plus the photos in the category were taken a year before the incident. This is a very plausible variant of sufficient quality, and fits right into Category:Special or fictional coats of arms, much more than many other files in there, as also stated by Anonmoos. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that things. Fictional Symbols are just private artwork and thus out of scope. That case here is an even worse one, as the images are really misleading.--Antemister (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view + Category:Special or fictional coats of arms. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case, if we keep one with the tiara or not, do we really need 14? Fry1989 eh? 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, and I have proposed this earlier, in another section of this DR:
There's File:Signum Francisci.svg, which follows the official version most closely. There's File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg, which has a variation with a tiara in a different style. And then the rest are a bunch of vector and raster files based on the svg version of the previous Pope's arms, they could be reduced to one single file if needed. The three remaining raster files have a different style, but all lack proper sources and attribution anyway. My assessment would leave us with two or three different files: the official arms, the arms with tiara, and the arms in the style of Benedict XVI (with pallium I guess).
Since writing that, another version has popped up, File:S.S. Francisco I Escudo Papal.png. Watermark should probably be removed. So, that leaves us with four versions. :) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree the one with the uploader's initials as a watermark needs to go. We already went through that nonsense with Alexander Liptak, we don't need to go through it again. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because even the official CoA aren't always in the same style wherever you see one.. And the shapes of the keys doesn't really matter, unless the shield is correct and all around it is fully shown. Articles like lets say "papal CoA" can be homogenic if just the shield is correct (and in given CoAs the mitra instead of the tiara). The details aren't so interesting. --Cum Deo (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that the Vatican has release a new version of the coat with some changes: [1] --Robert Laymont (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 files left

[edit]

The category's a lot clearer now. A rundown of the files left, and my comments on them:

  1. File:Insigne Francisci.svg Seems to be the closest version to the revision of the coat of arms.  Keep
  2. File:Coat of arms of Franciscus.svg Quite close, different font. The first file seems to have a traced font (might have some legal issues, I'm not an expert in this).  Keep
  3. File:Herb papieża Franciszka I.png Uncorrectly sourced, bad quality PNG. Can be removed in my opinion.  Delete
  4. File:Pope Francis Coat of Arms.jpg Seems doubtful that the user constructed this. Possibly stolen. Can be removed in my opinion.  Delete
  5. File:Blason fictif du Pape François.svg Variant of the original papal arms with Benedict's pallium. Could be updated to the new revision, is it up to the user.  Keep
  6. File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg Variant of the original papal arms with tiara. I will probably update this to the new revision.  Keep
  7. File:COA Franciscus.svg + File:Fictional Coat of arms of Pope Francis.svg + File:Pope Francis CoA.svg. These are files close to the original papal arms. They can be combined into one file, perhaps the original "accepted" version before the revision, so Wikipedia articles can illustrate the changes Francis made to his arms.  Merge

Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on numbers 2, 5 and 7. 2: A different font when the rest of the depiction is identical isn't enough to warrant its own file. If there is an issue with the font, we should simply alter the more accurate one rather than maintain another file.
The others are all either incorrect or entirely fictitious. We already have his arms from before his appointment as Pope so it seems unnecessary to keep the other incorrect versions of the papal arms for comparison purposes. If someone wants to maintain an interpretation of the blazon with the alternative set of keys or other different elements, then that is another matter, and in such a case I agree that we should only keep one and merge the others into it.
I agree with your reasoning on the others. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 14:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The papal arms were revised (star, depiction of the nardus, and the motto was placed in a scroll), that was what I was talking about in number 7, not the guesses people made before the papal arms was released. I think that a version close to the pre-revision papal arms would fit in an article, to illustrate the changes made. Concerning number 2, I guess it can indeed be seen as redundant. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. I suppose such an image could have merit. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only really need one of the official depiction, and one unofficial one with the tiara. We certainly don't need 9. Fry1989 eh? 18:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need an unofficial/wrong one with a tiara, therefore 6 should be deleted. 1, 2 can be kept. 3, 4 and 5 are wrong (pallium) and should be deleted. 7 show a star with five instead of eight spikes and should rather be deleted, since a better alternative (1 and 2) is available. --UV (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Would it be me, i'd also merge 1 and 2. Kathisma (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, we need the original version of the Papal Arms. UV, please read the rest of the page. You're really being extremely obnoxious by not even trying to refute my reasoning. You don't even acknowledge it, so why use my numbers? I've addressed all the things you say in the list you're responding too. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, INeverCry has deleted number 3 and 4. That makes it a bit easier, I guess. :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2 in 1 and (1 is distorted/rotated slightly to the left!?)  Delete
5 is replaced by 7 (merge)  Delete
-- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 13:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, like this then?

  1. File:Insigne Francisci.svg + File:Coat of arms of Franciscus.svg Fix possible distortion in the first, compare both files to the official release for the best result and merge together for best results.  Merge
  2. File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg Variant with tiara. Being a plausible varitation per Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, and content and the existence of Category:Special or fictional coats of arms  Keep
  3. File:Blason fictif du Pape François.svg + File:COA Franciscus.svg + File:Fictional Coat of arms of Pope Francis.svg + File:Pope Francis CoA.svg. Merge into one file, possibly this revision of number 1, which was the consensus version before the revision.  Merge

This would leave us with three files. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Comment. Sorry, I do not speak English, please use an online translator.[reply]

  1. File:Insigne Francisci.svg Esta versión tiene una serie de defectos estéticos. Los elementos externos (llaves, mitra, cinta) no están correctamente alineados, no están simétricos. Los defectos se originan en la versión inicial del escudo papal, el autor copió fielmente el emblema, incluyendo los defectos. Subí esta versión por aparte para que vean a lo que me refiero Test.svg 1, Test.svg
  1. File:Coat of arms of Franciscus.svg Yo hice esta versión, se parece a la versión oficial. Todo esta alineado y simétrico. La estrella no tiene las 8 puntas tan delgadas como la versión oficial, pues noté que las puntas delgadas se asemejan mucho a las del sol jesuita. El tipo de letra es diferente. No tengo esa fuente de letra. Además, yo no entiendo por que la versión oficial mezcla letras mayúsculas con minúsculas. --SajoR (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eso parece bastante claro. Podría adaptar las letras del primera versión?:-)
That seems clear enough. Could you adapt the letters from the first version? :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to offer to do the alignmengts/adjustment on File:Insigne Francisci.svg which would result in a symetry. This just because its older upload which afaic should have the right to stand. --maxxl2 - talk 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yo estoy haciendo el escudo de armas de los cardenales vivos. El tipo de letra que uso en los emblemas es el mismo que utilicé en File:Coat of arms of Franciscus.svg y en File:Coat of arms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.svg. Es una letra clara, uniforme y se identifica bien. La letra de la versión oficial, sinceramente no me gusta, es fea, parece hecha a mano, tiene características infantiles. Pero si todos ustedes prefieren la letra oficial, pues la puedo poner, claro que le haría algunos ajustes estéticos.

En hispano América, dos plantas son conocidas con el nombre de nardo. La planta Nardostachys grandiflora, es el mas conocido internacionalmente con el nombre de nardo, tiene referencia bíblica, pero desconozco que relación tiene con San José. La otra planta es la Polianthes tuberosa (es, en), originaria de América, es conocida como nardo y como vara de San José. Yo creo que la descripción del escudo papal se refiere a la planta Polianthes tuberosa, acá pueden ver una versión del escudo papal con esa planta. Me base en esta foto. En wikipedia en español hablamos del tema, acá pueden leer la discusión. --SajoR (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Spanish is understandable with google-translate. If your Coa is heraldic plausible, one may keep your version. The inconsistencies of the 1st version, I'll just smooth out. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 12:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Przestańcie poprawiać po papieżu. Oryginalny herb nie jest idealnie symetryczny: [2]. Tworzenie na siłę wersji symetrycznej to OR! Poznaniak (dyskusja) 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is really a mistake that we must not take over. The original looks more like a kind of sketch. PS: Moreover, it's really ridiculous to assume imperfections and to be for that on other more important points to be highly inaccurate. (de: Zudem ist es ansonsten wirklich lächerlich Unschönheiten zu übernehmen und dafür an wichtigeren anderen Stellen sehr unpräzise zu sein.) I have accordingly corrected this somewhat. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oryginalny herb został narysowany ręcznie, zeskanowany i poszczególne elementy zostały poskładane w fotoshopie. Fakt, że grafik posiadał niskie umiejętności w tym programie i nie wykonał herbu symetrycznie oraz zastosował w dewizie pismo odręczne zamiast czcionki nie oznacza, że wolno dokonywać korekt. Mogłem przecież poprawić wszystkie proporcje w herbie i wykonać go z dokładnością do 0,001 mm, ale nie chodzi o popisywanie się moimi możliwościami tylko o przedstawianie rzeczywistości. Ta grafika ma służyć do zilustrowania artykułów w encyklopedii na temat herbu papieskiego a nie "moje wyobrażenie o herbie". Wszelkie korekty są przedstawianiem twórczości własnej. Poznaniak (dyskusja) 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, but that has nothing to do with heraldry. This is not a logo where you must take every little inconsistency. On the contrary, it shows a lack of knowledge of heraldry. Then just take the pixel-image with heraldic imperfections. Moreover, the other source is more symmetrical... (de: Tut mir leid zu sagen, aber das hat rein gar nichts mit Heraldik zu tun. Das ist kein Logo wo du jeden kleinen Ungereimtheit übernehmen must. Im Gegenteil es zeigt ein Nichtwissen von Heraldik. Dann nimm doch gleich das Pixelbild mit heraldischen Unschönheiten. Zudem die andere Quelle symmetrisch ist.) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Może we Francji, gdzie każdy bazgroł zgodny z blazonem jest herbem. W Polsce czy w Watykanie herb jest zatwierdzany urzędowo. Herb papieża podlega ogłoszeniu w Acta Apostolicae Sedis i obowiązuje tylko zgodny z zamieszczonym tam rysunkiem. Wszystko inne jest ORem. Ponadto "poprawiając" herb m.in. zmasakrowałeś wstęgę z dewizą i popełniłeś masę innych drobnych błędów, przez co cały herb wygląda na rozsypujący się. Swoje wersje może załadować pod innymi nazwami, ten plik natomiast pozostaw poprawny. Poznaniak (dyskusja) 19:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand, the coat of arms is more similar to the original than before.[3] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 21:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Unfortunately English is the best language for Google-translator, sorry my native language is German.) This implementation is absolute nonsense, it's incredible: [4] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 13:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: Ask yourself rather, why the coat of arms (only by the words of heraldists) had to be changed (by the Church-Heraldist)[5]... And another personal point: "There are somehow people who necessarily create a version, only to HER image is used .. whatsoever." -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 13:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 very similar files are left

[edit]

Unfortunately to keep only 2 versions of the same seems also not a proper solution. As we can see the controversy gets now spread to several Wikipedias (replacing without any edit comment).[6] The "more original" version (File:Insigne Francisci.svg) get replaced on several pages and Wikipedias by the author himself of the second version (File:Coat_of_arms_of_Franciscus.svg) after 2 years (grass has grown). ↔ User: Perhelion 13:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fictional_Papal_Arms&oldid=205011055"