Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Freinsheim.svg

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:Wappen Freinsheim.svg

Es existiert mit File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg eine bessere Version Fränsmer (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep in scope, no need to delete it. Multichill (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you compare to File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg, you'll see, that the real CoA is different and this here is fictional and never exist outside Wikipedia. Fränsmer (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The two look within the normal range of heraldic artistic variation to me. Legitimate artistic variations in coats of arms are allowed on Commons -- there's no requirement that there be only one SVG file for each coat of arms... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if there exist several variations of the CoA. But I live in this town, and I can say, this variation is an invention of the user Bayernraute. With your argumentation I could also create my own fictional variations and upload them here and they will exist here forever, cause you say 'hey there are allowed'. Fränsmer (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, if there's some specific thing which is wrong with this image, then tell us what that specific thing is, because this generalized abstract discussion isn't getting you too far, and is pretty much wasting the time of the rest of us... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not our lion, not our grapes, not our colour (light blue). The one correct thing is the "F". Tomorrow I can walk through town and take photos of older and newer signs with the coat of arms. So you can see, over the years the escutcheon shape changed, but there was one lion and one grape style with just detail changes. So, this file and File:Wappen Kreis Brilon2.svg are just correct within the meaning of the blazon, but not within the reality.

Also it seems, the uploader used standard lions and standard grapes just to have an SVG, a bodge job. Now we have an SVG with correct lion and correct grapes. So these files are obsolete (and File:Wappen Kreis Brilon2.svg has furthermore a totally incorrect file name) Fränsmer (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The grapes are from File:Escut_d'Avinyó.svg Fränsmer (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Delete Out of scope: User created without reliable source, unused, bad display/quality. In Germany Blazon means not everybody is a heraldist, also CoA are used in a way like logos that can't be changed! (Commons is not be a place for free fantasy artists) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 23:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think the lion is copyright protected File:Small coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg (by cz:Jiří Louda). -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about recent German municipal emblem laws, but that's really not the way that traditional European heraldry works... The "source" is the textual Blazon, and the heraldic artist has the ability to use artistic variants as he sees fit, within the parameters of the textual Blazon. There's really no requirement that each detail of an image have a formal source citation, and I'm not too sure what you're suggesting about that. Furthermore, if image File:Small coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg is legitimately on Wikimedia Commons, then others can legitimately re-use parts of it for their own images. So either you should nominate File:Small coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg for deletion, or else it's a complete non-issue... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See also what the admin user: Odder about this says[1] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 12:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Lion: I think you are very wrong with that again my friend: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Katepanomegas -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Kept: Since the both match the blazon, there is no reason to delete ethier. As a general rule Commons Admins do not take sides in this kind of arguement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Wappen Freinsheim.svg

Analog zu Wappen Freinsheim2.svg möchte ich auch dieses Wappen zur Löschung vorschlagen. Fränsmer (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nachtrag: File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg zeigt das korrekte Wappen der Stadt Freinsheim und wird auch in Artikeln verwendet. Die vorliegende Datei stellt in seiner aktuellen Version lediglich eine Variante in hellerem Blau dar. Die vorherigen Dateiversionen sind ähnlich gelagert, wie beim verlinkten, gelöschten Wappen Freinsheim2.svg. Ich nehme mal die Version vom 31.01.2010, wo - welch Irrsinn - zur Darstellung des Pfälzer Löwens auf den Böhmischen Löwen, dargestellt im Wappen Teschechiens zurückgegriffen wurde. Die vorherige Version von Odder ist ein Duplikat des gelöschten Wappen Freinsheim2.svg. Die ersten beiden Uploads wurden von gleichen Uploader später durch den Upload mit dem Böhmischen Löwen ersetzt; sind zwar korrekter als dieser, aber durch Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg obsolet. Da es für diese Datei in keiner Version eine Verwendung gibt, habe ich diese zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. Somit verbliebe auf Wikimedia Commons schlussendlich Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg; dieses Wappen ist korrekt und bis Otto Hupp zurück nachvollziehbar. Damit wäre das jahrelange Herumgeflicke am Wappen dieser Kleinstadt auf Commons endlich aus der Welt geschafft. Fränsmer (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Delete Von mir aus schon (und mit vollem Verständnis für Fränsmer), es ist (wie gesagt) an sich ein nicht mehr benötigtes Duplikat, die älteren Versionen sind nicht nur nicht zu gebrauchen sondern (wie gesagt) grob falsch (dabei geht es nicht um die Heraldik), abgesehen von der 1. Version, die jedoch nur ein schlechter Autotrace ist wahrscheinlich hiervon, daher OOS. -- Perhelion 17:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) @Multichill: Dieser "User" setzt seinen Kommentar einem Bot gleich (den er u.a. tatsächlich betreibt) scheinbar wahllos in DR. Auf mehrmaliges Nachfragen nach dem Sinn reagiert er nicht (eben einem Bot gleich). Ich möchte ja generell nichts gegen Admins sagen und dass diese natürlich in gewisser Weise zusammenhalten müssen, nur sind besagte für den Ruf verantwortlich den Commons nun mal hat. -- Perhelion 17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Zur von dir angesprochenen ersten Version gäb es noch zu ergänzen, dass der Schild wohl von übernommen ist. Lustigerweise ist die Schildform des Viernheimer Wappens laut viernheim.de auch nicht mit diesem identisch.

Commons sollte keinen Raum bieten, eigene Idealvorstellungen von kommunalen Wappen, die dem tatsächlich geführten Wappen lediglich in der Blasonierung ähnlneln unters Volk zu bringen. Fränsmer (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted -FASTILY 06:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)