File talk:Windhoek COA.svg

  Where are is the fantasy colouring coming from; there is no yellow in the official COat of Arms of Windhoek. --14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chtrede (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for rectifying the colour issue. --Chtrede (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of the colours used in the original file version

I am giving notice about the fact that I am restoring the colours originally used by Fenn-O-maniC when emblazoning the arms of Windhoek. The individual who effected the change of colours, while doing so in good faith based on depictions of the arms he regularly saw in his daily life, simultaneously revealed a lack of awareness of the proper customs at Wikimedia Commons (initiating a deletion request on entirely nonsufficient grounds), as well as a complete ignorance of the workings of the ancient and honoured tradition that is heraldry. I shall try my very best to explain why this is the case:
Within heraldry, arms are not defined as some exact image, which when duplicated, must have its details precisely copied, unlike what may be the case for logos. Instead, arms are described by a textual description, known as a blazon. While the blazon must be followed for a depiction of any arms to be correct, as long as it is followed, conformant emblazonments can vary significantly, and nonetheless all be considered correct. As an example, I shall showcase two emblazonments of the arms of the Swedish municipality of Svalöv:

• 
• 

To be absolutely clear, these are not two different coats of arms, but rather two emblazonments (interpretations) of just one coat of arms. The arms have the following blazon: "I grönt fält en såningsman av guld.", which translated literally, becomes: "In a green field, a golden sower.". The first part just means that the field of the shield is green in colour, while the second part informs that said field contains a sower of golden colour. That's it. Notice that the blazon does not specify any other details, which leaves room for these rather different, but equally correct interpretations. The sowers are drawn differently, the escutcheons have different shapes, and the emblazonments even use noticeably different colours shades. All this is however entirely permitted, and even encouraged, according to the rules of heraldry.
Now, why I am bringing this all up? The intent of doing so was that any reader, who might otherwise have disputed my actions, would become aware of the aspects of heraldry relevant to this issue. You see, the aforementioned individual stated that "There is also no gold in the coat of arms of Windhoek, it is a brown [...]". The heart of this issue is that of the veracity, or lack thereof, of that statement. Keeping in mind the existence of blazons, a look at the official blazon of the arms of Windhoek will promptly answer the question of what elements a valid interpretation needs to include. The official blazon can be found recorded at the website of the National Archives & Records Service of South Africa, and is available in both a version in Afrikaans and one in English. For the Afrikaans version, I am adding dictionary links to certain words of importance, while for the English version, I will correspondingly add links to Wikipedia articles explaining heraldic jargon:

(Afrikaans)

-- Wapen: In silwer, 'n Windhoekse aalwyn (Aloe Rubrolutea) met drie blomtrosse op 'n los grond, alles van natuurlike kleur.

-- Helmteken: 'n Muurkroon van goud.

-- Wapenspreuk: SUUM CUIQUE

(English)

-- Arms: Argent, a Windhoek aloe (Aloe Rubrolutea) with a raceme of three flowers on an island, proper.

-- Crest: A mural crown Or.

-- Motto: SUUM CUIQUE

I did present this blazon in the original discussion that led to this present situation, but it seems that this may perhaps have been too late, as it was neither acknowledged, nor effective in affecting the final outcome. But as evidenced by this official blazon, the arms of Windhoek do contain gold, where the individual arguing otherwise claimed brown instead. With all of this proof now presented, I shall finally allow myself to restore this file to its proper state, and I ask that anyone who may oppose this carefully read through what I have written here, and try to understand the heraldic facts. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)