File talk:Blason ville si Ljubljana (Slovénie).svg

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

Inexact reproduction of the coat-of-arms of Ljubljana

[edit]

I've found a page describing the development of the Ljubljana's coat-of-arms [1]. It's in Slovene unfortunately (you may Google translate it), but contains pictures of all the previous versions of the currently used coat-of-arms. There is also a page describing the coat-of-arms in text.[2] There are some differences between this version and the official version:

  • the castle wall should have 7 merlons
  • the wall should have three sides visible
  • the parapet of the wall should not be divided into three parts
  • there should be a raised golden grate at the door
  • the upper parts of windows should be rounded
  • the tower should have 5 merlons and two sides visible
  • the dragon should have two legs visible as well as his body drawn out
  • the dragon's tongue should be red and shaped like a fish hook.

--Eleassar (t/p) 20:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. City municipality of Ljubljana official web site describes Ljubljana's emblems and symbols (in the right menu are links to Grb(=Coat of Arms) and Zastava (=Flag) of City municipality of Ljubljana). According to this site official coat of arms is this. Accurate SVG version of this image is already available at SL:WP. I think we should transfer SVG from SL:WP to Commons. MZaplotnik my contributions 10:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would be great, but the image has been uploaded under "fair use". --Eleassar (t/p) 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, in traditional European heraldry it's the textual Blazon which is definitive, not the exact details of any one artistic rendering of the blazon... AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the things listed above are described in the blazon.[3] --09:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect versions

[edit]

{{Editrequested}}

Please, delete the first three versions, because they are incorrect and as such redundant. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - we normally only delete old versions that are copyright violations. See also COM:REVDEL. Rd232 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]