File talk:Coat of Arms of the Bagrationi of Mukhrani.svg

Please do write edit summaries. I think the new version that I uploaded was clearly better. Why are you reverting? - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Please provide proof of your radically different new version. Fry1989 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How the f**k am I supposed to provide PROOF that I assembled parts from the the listed sources in my Inkscape??? What do you expect - a screenshot of my desktop on flickr? - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The coat of arms is in line with the blazoning shown e.g. on File:Bagrationgerbial75674.jpg - which i have listed. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, BTW, do not revert again until we have a consensus here. The status quo is the one that was reverted, namely the new one. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I presupposed that you knew about the fundamental principle in heraldry that is: the individual rendering is correct as long as it's in line with the blazoning. `The question is: is the arms correctly displayed? In this case it clearly is. The shape of the shield is for instance not controlled by the heraldic conventions. The version that I originally made and uploaded also had a different "rendering" of the arms, from File:Bagrationgerbial75674.jpg, so If you follow the logic that you are suggesting then you probably should seek to delete File:Coat of Arms of the Bagrationi Dynasty.svg altogether. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I was able to find at http://www.royalhouseofgeorgia.ge/royal-house/coat-of-arms, the only thing I would suggest is to change the colors of the "4th, gules, Saint George doing what comes naturally to him. Superimposed over everything is an escutcheon with an image of Our Lord's sacred tunic." back to the original white. I notice that the arms on that site has St. George facing in the opposite direction. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, your source Zscout would suggest the version I've reverted to several times is more accurate, it is in keeping with shape and colours. AS for Ssolbergj, what kind of proof do I want? A engraving, a painting, a government or royal family website even, something Zscout has now provided. Fry1989 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One other note. I'm tried of people using the excuse that "any interpretation is okay as long as it matches the blazon" so that they can alter Arms however they wish. If an armiger shows the arms a certain way, we should try and match that as best we can, unless it would make it non-free and then not allowed on Commons. If you want it to look different, upload it seperately. That's my take and I'm sticking to it. Fry1989 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bagrationgerbial75674.jpg is as official as a rendering of this coat of arms gets, as far as we know. The only inconsistency between that one and the one on [1] is that the cross between the quarterings is golden in one of them and white in the other, for some strange reason.

Any interpretation is as "correct" as it gets, as long as it's in line with the official blazon. It's as simple as that. I don't see how you can call that an "excuse". It's a basic principle of heraldry. It's what differentiates a coat of arms from e.g. a logo. The vague idea that a rendering of a coat of arms is more "accurate" if it overall (including the shape of supporters and shield) somehow "looks more like" one or another rendering is on the other hand unfounded, and certainly not an infallible argument that one can use in order to brand one rendering version as being automatically superior. It's an idea, not a rule. It's an ok opinion, don't get me wrong, but it's not an infallable argument. Because heraldry isn't logo-making. And I would like to point out that the old version of this file doesn't really look any more like the image on [2] anyway, and besides it has a typo in it's motto. - Ssolbergj (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to upload a new version with a white shield, but it's blocked. - Ssolbergj (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly Zscoput I have to wonder why you're allowing this. There was nothing wrong with the previous arms, they matched the royal website better, and Ssolberj still has never given a source for his appearance. It's just fancying up something that doesn't need it. Fry1989 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You asked for my mediation and you got it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, doesn't mean I have to agree with it Fry1989 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I took "Honestly Zscoput I have to wonder why you're allowing this." as my mediation is for naught. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I aprecciate someone giving a third O. Fry1989 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989, please note that the usual act of admin in case of edit waring as you did is not to protect the page but to warn you as first step and blocking you if you keep edit waring in the next step. Now when you know this, I believe you aprecciate Zscout370 more. The file made by user Ssolbergj. If you think that Ssolbergj's file update was wrong you discuss it her in the talk page and try to convince him that you are right. But you also have to willing to be convinced also.

For the issue itself. I am interested myself in the subject. User Ssolbergj explain himself and provide also source but you did not made any argument. Geagea (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fry is clearly not in the business of forging consensus: he uploaded File:Coat of Arms of the Bagrationi Dynasty (original).svg - including the motto typo that I noted. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded you original version seperately because I think people should have a choice, something you clearly do not. These two versions are so greatly different. Why do you feel so threatened by this? I've not forced the other version over the current one, and I've attributed it as your work. Grow up if you're honestly bothered that some people don't like your latest version and would prefer something more authentic. Fry1989 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel "threatened"; I felt annoyed by your lack of interest in the process of building consensus. You did in fact revert multiple times before you engaged in any discussion. At first you even didn't bother to write edit summaries. The fact that you continue to say "more authentic" as if that were a matter of course, only goes to show that you still haven't paid attention to the written argumentation in this discussion. That's a problem for people who want productive discussions on commons. When I had written a detailed argument, you simply branded it as an "excuse". I said that I couldn't see how you can call it as such, but you haven't responded.

I would like to think that "grown ups" could provide substantial argumentation instead of resorting to nonsensical condescending language à la "cheap", "like the work of a third grader", "disgrase" or "it's sad". - Ssolbergj (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And none of that language have I used (outside of "sad", which isn't in reference to what you think it is), nor do I condone it. It doesn't help. However, clearly people disagree with your changes, something you don't seem to appreciate, even when confronted with sources. And what I mean by "more authentic" is that it close matches the emblem as most commonly used by whatever authority holds it. No matter what the rules of heraldry and "free interpretation of blazons" and all that, nobody can deny that these two version are very different from each other, and one matches closer then the other, the sources we have. People can try and down-play that all they want, but as far as I'm concerned and I've said it many times, when we know what something looks like as used by it's armiger, we should try and match it as best we can. Fry1989 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all I woild like to ask all sides not to consider my comment as an attack on authors of .svg versions. It will try to explain the situation with this COA. So, first of all we don't know, whether the dynasty had a COA before the decay into three branches in year 1495, but we know the COAs of two branches - of Imereli Bagrationi, and Mukhrani Bagrationi. To be short and not to bother you, Bagrationi have never had such a COA. This COA is just a compilation of all Bagrationi symbols, like making soup of both fish and chicken :).Anyway, I would only recommend to change the image of St.George. Now you are using the COA of Moscow, and this is not Georgian St. George. So, please don't argue. The compilation isn't worth it :).--George, 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. the latin motto was used only by Mukhrany branch.--George, 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mukhrany branch is the major branch today or not? So I think it should be the representative COA for the Bagrationi today. Geagea (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes, based on the website of the Georgian Monarchy and also based on what was said here by Gaeser. I changed St. George to the version that is used on the Georgian arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

On the new "bold" revert: to say that the new version "resembles the work of a 3rd grader" is nothing more than an utterly unhelpful insult, with which I disagree. We are having a serious discussion here. Therefore I think boldness, without any attempt to build a consensus through argumentation, shouldn't be welcomed. Besides, the old typo is still there in the old version. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting the change because this disgrace cannot be associated with the Royal House of Georgia. It looks cheap can you not see it? The misspelling on the old COA can be fixed. Was it honestly that much easier to make a new COA than to just correct the mistakes (spelling and the "Russian" St. George)?--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, and it's sad, because Ssolbergj has done his before with the Royal Arms of Norway, where he has created what was a great work of art and very close to the actual arms, and them over-simplifies it and makes it look nothing like the actual use. In both cases, we have sources of what the arms look like, and he continues to defend his simple versions over the accurate and beautiful ones, and in both cases, I've been fornced to upload his original works seperately. Fry1989 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the motto is supposed to say originally? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I corrected the misspelling but I have trouble uploading it because its ending .png does not match the file .svg. If anyone has any idea of how to proceed form this point - the conversions have failed - please let me know.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrelie, thanks for helping but please read carefully the discussion above. Reverting the file as you did considerd as edit waring. The COA that made by user Ssolbergj is just a compilation of all Bagrationi symbols (as mentioned above), so please try to convince the user that your changes are necessary. You allowed to upload your version of COA in different file name. Please don't revert until you reach concensus her. Geagea (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the need for consensus is indeed a basic principle that has to be respected. @Fry: the only thing that is sad is how you seem to disregard the process of building consensus. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am uploading a separate file and I certainly do not need a consensus for that. If consensus was not required to replace the initial file with a new cheap work, then it should not be necessary now.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way Ssolbergj, this is your file to begin with, so you can always put it on your page if you like but do not expect us to bear it on EVERY SINGLE page where the previous COA used to be. You can have the whole thing removed if you like, having no COA would be better.--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not an option Fry1989 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comteese, tell me what the text is supposed to be and I can try and make an SVG version. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The new corrected version. I think this is what the motto should say in the end "Per Totum" and not "AER Totum".--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that has been fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. How did you covert, Did you use some kind of software?--ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited the SVG file in Inkscape and found the three letters. Then, copy and rotate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 12:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very sad discussion. The old version has already gotten a seperate file, and it was the intent of the author to update it to his current style. I am voicing my opinion here to even out this wretched consensus. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop the fight, this file shouldn't be superceded, it's an SVG version as useful as the other. The function of the superceded tag is not to canalize users into the file one user deems to be in better taste than the other.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This "new flavour" looks NOTHING like th version on the Royal Website. I think that is absolutely a reason to contest the new look. Just because something matches the blazon, that doesn't make it right. Yes, under the rules, as long as something matches the blazon, it is ok, but we are an educational source, and should try and best reflect the reality, not just the blazon. "I like it" is not an accepted reason for changes, and it is unbelievable that people are allowing this new look to get by without sources, just because people think it looks nice. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has decided. As you've said yourself, you don't know anything about heraldry. You are the one using subjective reasons. The author's intent and consensus are being followed. Adelbrecht (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I HAVE NEVER SAID "I don't know anything about heraldry", I dare you to try and find those words because you never will. What I HAVE said is that I a, not well-versed in it and it's ancient traditions, but that doesn't give you the right to just dismiss my arguments just because you know more than me and think I'm an idiot, which is what you have implied numerous times. Fry1989 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I partly understand Fry1989 reasons, though I don't agree at all with the way you (Fry1989) have been trying to impose hem. There is a rule of thumb in Commons that files should not be overwritten by significantly different versions. I understand that Ssolbergj wanted to update his style (and to me both versions are beautiful, indeed), but he should have done it in a different file, instead of (certainly unwillingly) imposing the "new style" over every wiki which is currently using this CoA. I propose to keep the original version in this file, and upload the new look under a new file name, and then let the projects chose. I believe this is the usual way of doing things here. But the superceded tag should not be used in any of them.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And that has always been my point. Original authorship of a file doesn't give you the right to force your new stylistic preferences on all wikipedias just because "I like it". Especially when it looks NOTHING like the original, and is contrary in style to existing sources, such as the Royal House website. Fry1989 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, neither of these styles or compositions resemble the arms on the royal house. I mean, it has mantling, a heraldic order (I can get detailed pics of those). Would anyone object if I were to make a new version that at least has the composition of that version? On a separate version of course. I am not going to force that on anyone, for the record. I will merely present it as an option. I will also avoid the English lion, as soon as I can get an agreement with Sodacan or Katepanomegas about the new style for a European lion. That is purely stylistic though, I think only French heraldry makes the blazoned difference here and there. Adelbrecht (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a mix up. This is based on a non-royal arms. The version that both versions correspond with is this. It seems that in the royal version, Saint George is faced differently, the motto is missing and extra ornamentation and an order is added. Adelbrecht (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the royal website is a primary source, so what is there is most probably correct (even if historically and heraldically incorrect, or plainly awkward), but I wonder where cilialacorte got that blason from? Is it a real blason, an informed conjecture, or a soup of fish and chicken to fill a gap? What crown is there, imperial, electoral hat, or something else? In any case I believe you will do a great service if you design an armorial achievement that closely matches the royal one, and the lesser arms as well, to go with it, and it should replace the actual CoA in the articles dealing with the current royal house.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume that these are the arms used by the house before they became monarchs of Georgia. The crown is a princely hat, as was used in the Holy Roman Empire. It was often a substitute for the Princely Hat of Russia. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be useful to document this particular CoA with that information ("arms used by the house before they became monarchs of Georgia", and not exactly the "Bragantioni dinasty" in general), especially if a better source can be found.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is to be clarified like that, it's better to put 'assume'. I have some basic knowledge of Russian heraldry, but I am certainly not an authority. I might certainly be wrong, but I think my assumption is very possible, looking at the history of the dynasty. A crown was put on this file, so it's kinda a strange amalgam at the moment. Also, both versions of this file are incorrect. In the assumed pre-royal arms, Saint George is colored proper, and in the royal arms, he is blazoned Saint George mantled Azure on a horse trippant to sinister Argent trampling a Dragon Vert. Which is basicly the same as colored proper, just a lot more specific. (Another source that can be consulted, which features a middle version of the royal arms.) Adelbrecht (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. When I've done my research on Baron von Koehne regarding a featured article on him (which I completed, but shamefully never published), I became aware of the far-west Russian heraldry was before he hold office and started to put some order on it, following European conventions. I don't know if the Georgian Bragantionis fall in this bag, but it could explain the mix-up in their coat of arms. If I well recall, the Czar commended and maintained detailed books recording every coat of arms and honorific title in use in the Empire (thus making official the doubtful baronial premises of Herr Koehne, and his own coat of arms). It would be very interesting to see what are the records there for the Bragantioni, if anyone has access to those records.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)