Template talk:Coat of arms

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to let this template categorise the CoA. By doing that it makes it impossible to put the images inte subcategories. Also this looks very much like a varining template, thus a non-permanent part of the image description. /Lokal_Profil 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the template has a parameter, that can be used to feed subcategories as well. Michelet-密是力 20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Also drawing a copyrighted work from the description so as to get as close as possible to the official CoA does constitute a derivative work. /Lokal_Profil 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Flag of Wales 2.svg
There is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics, you are making a confusion with logos (where the representation must be the official one). If a CoA is defined as "Per fess argent and vert, a dragon passant gules", any drawing corresponding to this definition (like the one to the left)is correct (as long as a herald can recognise it). Indeed, if someone makes a .svg translation of a .jpg original drawing, it is a copyvio - but not a "derivative work", since there has been no artistic creativity. As soon as the change in the drawing is substantial enough, so that the original picture can't be identified, it is a derivative of the "Per fess argent and vert, a dragon passant gules" PD-definition, not of the CC-Image:Flag of Wales 2.svg representation. Michelet-密是力 20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my mistake: indeed, the comment should have been "Drawing a Coat of Arms from a heraldic description does not create a "derivative work"" - Corrected now. Michelet-密是力 21:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

This could be a little confusing -- better to use standard terms like "blazon"... AnonMoos 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TERMINOLOGY PROBLEM! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON[edit]

Again, why in the name of heaven doesn't this template use the precisely correct term in the technical terminology of heraldry, which is in fact "blazon"??? As it is, the wording of this template flails around in a verbosely muddled way which is rather confusing to people who know something about heraldry, and which doesn't provide a way for people who don't know about heraldry to easily look up and verify what is asserted... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit only for Admins? - Please translate![edit]

Hello, I have just now have seen that I can't edit this template. Befor I startet to make to an translation strukur: Template:Coat_of_Arms/en and Template:Coat_of_Arms/lang I will start with Template:Coat_of_Arms/de Can a admin please integrate

 {{Coat_of_Arms/{{#ifexist:Template:Coat_of_Arms/{{int:Lang}}|{{int:Lang}}|en}}|}} 

into the main site. I think it is important that the user understand the text of the template complette. HBR (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a Blazon[edit]

{{editprotected}}

This has already been pointed out above, with no action or response. The first line of this template is just plain wrong. Below are a few suggestions of how the first line could be corrected.

  • This file depicts a coat of arms. -- Incorrect
  • This file is the visual depiction of a blazon. -- Correct, but perhaps not enough information.
  • This file depicts a blazon; the heraldic description of a coat of arms or heraldic flag. -- Correct, but perhaps awkward
  • This file is a coat of arms or heraldic flag; the visual representation of a blazon. -- Correct

There are other similar permutations of the wording, but the term blazon must appear here. It should also be noted that the visual representation of a blazon can also take the form of a flag, not just a shield (coat of arms).

In an ideal world, this template should be renamed {{Blazon}}, but I understand that could be more hassle than it's worth. Perhaps a redirect be workable? Wine Guy (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording I would prefer is that a particular visual depiction of a coat of arms is a "rendering" or "realization" of a blazon. The basic principle is that in traditional European-based heraldry, the authoritative definition of a coat of arms is the textual description, known as a blazon -- and that many minor artistic variations of the arms are acceptable as long as they are compatible with the blazon. If you copy somebody else's already existing artistic rendering of a coat of arms, then that might be a copyright violation (depending on the exact circumstances), but if you make your own new personal artistic rendering of the arms from scratch based on the textual blazon, then you own the copyright to your own particular rendering.
However, there are some other variant forms or offshoots of heraldry where only one fixed artistic rendering of an emblem is allowed, and in that case the rules which apply are more those relevant to corporate etc. logos, rather than the rules of traditional blazon-based heraldry... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, for clarity (and to help any admins who might happen across this to understand) I'll reply point by point.
  • The wording I would prefer is that a particular visual depiction of a coat of arms is a "rendering" or "realization" of a blazon. - According to Roget's Thesaurus, rendering/depiction/representation are synonymous in this sense; see 2nd entry here, 2nd entry here, and 1st entry here. The reason I chose representation is that it is already used in the template under "Please note". If you would prefer, how's this wording:
  • This file is a coat of arms or heraldic flag; the visual representation (rendering) of a blazon.
  • If you copy somebody else's already existing artistic rendering of a coat of arms, then that might be a copyright violation... - This is addressed in the template under "Please note" (using the word representation, hence my preference for that word over rendering).
  • However, there are some other variant forms or offshoots of heraldry where only one fixed artistic rendering of an emblem is allowed... - This too is covered in the current template under "Restriction of use - Legal notice".
Basically, my intent here is two-fold; include the term blazon, and include heraldic flag. There are admins who come across a heraldic flag image tagged with this template who aren't familiar with the finer points of heraldry; they see a flag, they see a tag that says coat of arms, they think "a flag is not a coat of arms", they delete the image. Someone then uploads a similar image, and the cycle repeats, sometimes for years. My suggested rewording of the first line of this template will help everyone understand what the template is for, and it also adds the correct terminology. Wine Guy (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tracker category[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please change:

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[Category:Coats of arms of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:PD coat of arms definitions|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

to

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[Category:Coats of arms of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Files categorized by parameter of Template:Coat of Arms]]|[[Category:PD coat of arms definitions|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

This allows to identify files using this template to categorize in a topical category. Thanks. -- User:Docu at 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Huib talk 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Move template[edit]

{{editprotected}}

The template should be moved to "Template:Coat of arms" since in English words are not capitalized. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Enabled i18n while I was on it. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Description?[edit]

Where is it written, when this template is applied? In general, if there is no specific template for the country? Why is Category:PD coat of arms definitions in Category:Heraldry templates? There is also no mention on Commons:Coats of arms. -- πϵρήλιο 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)