Talk:Coat of arms of Luxembourg

message: 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.
*First, both blazons are the same and preconise two double-tailed lions as supporters. 
*Second, these two laws are not on the same level. The first is the original law of 1972. The second is the corrective law of 1993. As usual in law, only the most recent version is to be followed. 
*Third, The modified art.5 explicitly says "Les armoiries du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, le drapeau national et le pavillon de la batellerie et de l’aviation sont reproduits en annexe à la présente loi, le texte seul faisant foi" (the CoA and flags are drawn in annexe of the law, but the text only is to be considered). Asame, the modified art.2 mentions that "La loi du 23 juin 1972 sur les emblèmes nationaux est complétée par une annexe comportant le texte et la mélodie de l’hymne national. Cette annexe fait partie intégrante de la loi." (the lyrics and melody of the hymn are annexed to the law, this annexe is a part of the law). The legislative power felt necessary to mention that for the coats of arms the annexe is of a different nature than for the hymn. There are therefore three different things in these laws : 
:*the text of the law
:*the hymn annexe which is part of the law
:*the heraldic graphic annexes which ARE NOT part of the law.
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)
replies: text: The inconsistencies mentioned above have been corrected. However, the incivility and insulting language that the other user has felt neccesary to address me with will be held on record. Fry1989 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have insulted me. I've only thrown the stuff you said back. You were uncivil. See, you're just accusing me of the things you've done yourself. That's why this whole thing took so long. If you had read your own texts, you would have seen everything Katepanomegas told you. Adelbrecht (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: YOU started the whole arguement. All I did was reply to the original post saying that in my personal opinion, the change is not acceptable. I go to bed, and then the next day wake up to you BLARING at me, saying I'm abusing admin powers, that I'm a bully, and that I have no idea what I'm talking about, and ever since then you have maintained an attitude of "I'm an expert, you're not, so leave it to the adults and go sit an the kiddie table". YOU exacerbated the whole thing, and YOU are the one who is rude. All the evidence is on here and my talk page. YOU started it, and this whole arguement is the result of YOUR attitude towards somebody having a different opinion and disagreeing with you. Fry1989 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm already there. I am simply waiting for Adelbrecht to stop throwing around insults, and pretend he didn't start the whole issue. Am I not allowed to reply on an article talk page without getting blared at and being called names? I have no problem discussing this issue, and coming to an agreement, but that is dependent on one other person, who so far, has had no interest in anything but calling me names, and insisting that because I don't know as much as him regarding heraldry, that I'm somehow less of a valid person to discuss this matter. There, my point has been made, and I am ready to talk. We shall see what choice Adelbrecht makes. Fry1989 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I am willing to talk. I just wanted to get my point across, and that has been done. So Roux, don't claim we're both unwilling to talk (as you just did in your edit summary). I have made it quite clear I am (under the condition I be spoken to as an equal person). Fry1989 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Understanding inconsistencies

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arms of the Monarch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion