File talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius.svg

以下讨论已经存档。请不要修改。后续评论应该在新段落中进行。

COA Accuracy

This COA is not accurate and does not match the official description as well, you can compare it with original version of COA along with the official description on the government website here. I tried to improve the COA to bring it closer to the original one and upload it (see [1]). Both the shape of the shield and bottom banner is completely different from the original, the COA of Mauritius has never had such shapes, the colours of the new one is much more beautiful and match the official description, whereas the actual one doesn't. Also i tried to made a more realistic sugarcane. Kingroyos (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is a cosmetic issue, not an accuracy issue. The disputed tag is for accuracy issues. This file matches the text of the blazon perfectly fine, it just doesn't look the same as the image on the government website. That's cosmetic. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

FACTS; The colours does not match the official description in no way, the shield and bottom banner is completetly fake, there is no COSMETIC or whatever, STOP removing this template until this matter is not resolve, thanks.Kingroyos (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to add the disputed template improperly, I will report you for vandalism and ask this file be protected. This is your only warning. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't understand that this template is use where both ACCURACY and CORRECTNESS is disputed (see Template:Disputed coat of arms). You don't have any answer for it, you continued to remove it and is even threatening me, in fact its me who should report you for vandalism.Kingroyos (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Threatening? I'm warning you that your behaviour is not productive or appreciated and that I will be forced to seek admin intervention if you can not control yourself. You have uploaded your version as a different file, using the disputed tag on this file claiming yours is right and this is wrong violates POV rules. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me tell you that your attitude is also not appreciated, when i uploaded the updated COA to correct the accuracy according to original one, you reverted it using different pretext and finally said that its Violates COM:Overwrite, it is supposedly a completely different version and should instead be uploaded as a separate file, you also remove the accuracy template repeatedly by just stating the dispute was cosmetic, now when i upload it separately you are saying i can't discuss the accuracy of the COA because i am claiming mine is right which violates POV rules. You clearly have an ownership attitude of this file and don't want any changes at any cost, even if its an improvement, from poor SVG contruction to COM:Overwrite and now Cosmetic to npov, thats bad faith my friend.Kingroyos (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an ownership attitude??? Who here is freaking out and saying "it's wrong, it's wrong! we have to change it!!!". You are the user with an ownership attitude, even after you have uploaded your vastly different drawing as a different file you still can't let this one co-exist and you insist on calling it "wrong" when it's not wrong at all, it's just a different style. Your problem IS NOT an accuracy problem, it's a problem with different styles and that makes this a cosmetic dispute. There is nothing to discuss in a cosmetic dispute, you have the very strange opinion that if it doesn't look exactly like a certain drawing, it's "wrong". The truth is that as long as a file matches the blazon of a coat of arms, it can be drawn in any style the artist wishes. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any policies on wikicommons which state that any artist can draw the COA in his own style and even if its inaccurate it should always be given priority over the original version, by the way you are talking about co existence, but which one must be use in articles and templates? because when i used the updated one, you reverted all of them, is this not an ownership attitude?Kingroyos (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Try reading Commons:Coats of arms and Commons:Overwriting existing files, and get it out of your head that different style means "inaccurate", it simple doesn't. If the blazon says "shield with three coconuts in it", I can draw that any way I want as long as it's a shield with three coconuts in th middle. Whether my shapes match another artist's drawing or not doesn't matter, they're both heraldically correct. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You made me laugh, i agree that a COA is acceptable if it matches the description, but here its not the case. You should also get it into your head that there no no policies which state that an inaccurate COA should always be given priority over the original version, and also you didn't answer which one should be use in wikipedia articles and template now that the same COA exist.Kingroyos (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This file is only "inaccurate" in your mind. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Both COAs are obviously inaccurate, but no consensus has been established which one is "more inaccurate". Also per w:Special:Diff/614462962. Therefore adding {{Disputed coat of arms}} to both files.    FDMS  4    23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

---

以上讨论已经保存为档案。请不要修改。后续评论应该在新段落中进行。

User:Fry1989

It is definitely not up to you, who is even an involved party in this dispute, to judge whether or not a dispute is "serious" enough to have a warning about this dispute on its filedesc page. Please read my closure statement (especially the diff provided), having two inaccurate files doesn't make any of them less inaccurate.    FDMS  4    02:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's certainly not under your authority to enforce a template as a solution to an issue that has been left dormant for 6 months. There are no edit wars, there are no fights, and considering the free interpretation rule of COM:COA and other pages, I see no benefit to having a disputed template on either version claiming they are both "equally inaccurate". I had already seen your closing statement and still disagree. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: User:Kingroyos, the participants of the en.WP RFC and me consider the COA inaccurate. You appear to be the only one who doesn't. Do you think your opinion is worth more than consensus? I am not going to accept any "deals" of you and Kingroyos.    FDMS  8    19:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think and can assure you I don't make back-door deals with anyone. Both files are perfectly accurate based on the blazon, whether they are accurate in depicting the specific style that the current Government of Mauritius has chosen is a completely different question. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So when should {{Disputed coat of arms}} be used in your opinion?    FDMS  4    22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Feel like responding?    FDMS  4    20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)