Diskusjon:Tre kronor

message: Heisann. Jeg tar meg friheten å åpne en diskusjonstråd her, og inviterer de som er involvert i redigeringskrigen til å kommentere her. Jeg ser forskjellene i de to .svg filene, men det som ikke kommer klart frem fra redigeringskommentarene er hvorfor. Kan noen av dere som er involvert opplyse oss andre om hva problematikken her er? Mvh, --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:15 (CEST) Added translationHi there. I'm taking some liberties and opening a discussion thread here, and asking those involved in the edit war to comment here. I see the differences in the two .svg files, but the edit summaries do not clearly state why the edit conflict has arisen. Can someone involved in this please inform the rest of us what the problem is here?
 
replies: text: The Swedish Government uses flat crowns in it's lesser arms. The one with the raised crowns is a personal taste by Ssolbergj but that doesn't make it accurate. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:22 (CEST)
replies: text: :Thank you for the clarification, Fry1989. Can you provide a link to an official source image for the coat of arms as used by the Swedish government? Best regards, --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:26 (CEST)

text: Fry1989 tends to overlook the fact that it's not necessary in heraldry to try and mimick the depiction (of the blazon) that happens to be used by a specific authority (the Swedish government in this case). Claims that a specific version is more "accurate" or "valid" therefore make no sense. Both are entirely valid. Do you disagree? - Ssolbergj (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:33 (CEST)
replies: text: : Examples are the Riksdag website, the Prime Minister's website. and the Swedish Embassy to Canada. Finding an official document on the coat of arms is difficult. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:33 (CEST)
replies: text: ::Do you have any comment on the rules of heraldry? - Ssolbergj (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:35 (CEST)
replies: text: :::Ssolberg, I don't overlook anything, you know exactly what my views are. If the Government has it a certain way, we show it that way. That doesn't mean I overlook the rules of heraldry. I know you can make it look any way you want as long as it follows the blazon. But if the Government wants it a certain way, we're supposed to show it like that, not some personal fictional tastes, something you take great personal license with. That is my belief and it does NOT mean I overlook anything whatsoever. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:33 (CEST)

text: :::From my understanding of heraldry (As in the design is defined in text, and interpretation is somewhat subjective), I do not disagree that either could be valid. I've popped by svwiki and had a peek there, and judging by edit history, the version with the 'flat' crown is the one predominantly in use by 'official' sites. I would, as a non-involved third party, perhaps suggest that a standard is picked based on the Wiki that is 'closest to home', and using the image that is in use on the Swedish Wikipedia. Personal preference aside, it is in the interest of the projects as a whole that the same image is in use over as many projects as possible, to simplify any changes that might be made in the future. --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:40 (CEST)
replies: text: ::::"(...)then we show it that way"? What sort of argument is that? The imitations of the rendition used by the government will never be identical to the rendition used by the government, anyway. It's pointless. - Ssolbergj (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:41 (CEST)
replies: text: :::::It doesn't have to be identical, I have never said that. It should just be as close as possible. I'm allowed to have my beliefs just as much as you have the right to have yours. What you don't have the right to do though, is start universially replacing a widely-used symbol with your new version, when it is drastically different, and then constantly try and force it through when people find that drastic change controversial and revert back to what it was before. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:43 (CEST)
replies: text: ::::::I fully understand that after putting effort into contributing to WP by creating the new SVG, Ssolbergj would like to see it in use. This is not, however, me saying that I am throwing a vote here, just that I understand where S. is coming from. Does the new graphic as provided by Ssolbergj present any direct problem (beyond the fact that edit conflicts have arisen over it) in your view, Fry1989? --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:48 (CEST)
replies: text: :::::::I too understand the desire to have your works, which you put alot of effort into, to be used. However, Ssolbergj started replacing the version with the flat crowns on multiple language Wikipedias, without a discussion. And when other users reverted because the drastic difference was un-discussed and considered controversial, Ssolbergj just keept reverting to force his way through. That's not right. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:51 (CEST)

text: ::::::I don't see how that principle of trying to edge on a copyright breach is a goal. I think you are more familiar with the sport of universally replacing than me. And I don't see any point in arguing that something is "drastically different". - Ssolbergj (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:52 (CEST)
replies: text: :::::::That is an absolutely ubsurd statement. You can make things look similar without breaching copyright, and you know that. You're grasping at  straws for reasons why you get to do it any way you like. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:53 (CEST)
(Margin jump) On this particular point, I do agree with Fry1989 - WP:BOLD is well and good, but keep in mind WP:CIVIL (enwiki) as well. When a conflict arises like this, the best way to resolve it is communication, and I don't think that has really happened up until this point. Which understandably can ruffle some feathers. Can we perhaps open a discussion on this on affected Wikis where there has been involvement and come to a consensus about which image should be put into use? --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:55 (CEST)

text: I'm by the way not the only user who has argued that there should be a continuity in design between the greater and lesser arms - which by the way is a valid point. - Ssolbergj (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 02:57 (CEST)
replies: text: :Yes it is a valid point, but my point that we should accurately reflect it how the Government it represents, uses it, is just as valid, and while I may be the most avid defender of that principle, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Fry1989 (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 03:03 (CEST)
replies: text: ::This might be much to ask, but hopefully an acceptable alternative - Ssolbergj, would you be willing to go back in and alter your new svg to more closely resemble the version in use by the official sites mentioned? With regards to how much of the blazon the crown covers, for instance. On the same page, would a more similar image satisfy you as well, Fry1989? --Kenneaal (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 03:10 (CEST) Addendum: I do think the more three dimensional look of the gems are more aestethically pleasing for my sake, but that is my subjective opinion.
While I don't support Ssolbergj's approach to editing, I do find Ssolbergjs series of the coat of arms of Sweden both visually appealing, easily recognisable, and yet on the safe side when it comes to copyright issues. It would be a pity not to use them as a consistent set, with or without modifications. I hope both parts are willing to answer Kenneaals questions above.
I also agree that we should strive for interwiki-consistency, but it seems like no discussion have taken place at Swedish Wikipedia yet, only some edit warring, so it's hard to use Swedish Wikipedia as the standard in this case. Perhaps this discussion should really be moved to Swedish Wikipedia? – Danmichaelo (δ) 13. apr 2012 kl. 15:47 (CEST)
thread_title:  Endringer av bildelink for riksvåpenet 

message: One of the two illustrations here is in a two-dimensional style without perspective and shade-lines - in Norwegian called «flatestil». That is the most popular heraldic style for public authorities in Norway and Sweden today, but many private users of coats of arms prefer other heraldic styles. In other countries and in the history of heraldry we find several styles - more or less naturalistic.
Both illustrations have the royal crown in a style which is not quite identical to the one that most of the Swedish governmental authorities use today. 
Many illustrations of state and municipal coats of arms on wikipedia are more or less different from the ones that the authorities are using. From a heraldic point of view that is OK - but may be we ought to comment that fact when we use such illustrations? I have done that some places where we have the Norwegian national coat of arms.Hans C (diskusjon) 13. apr 2012 kl. 10:13 (CEST)
thread_title: Some heraldic points of view