Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius

Blazon

I know the source says that the sinister supporter is "a sambur deer per head embattled argent and gules". But shouldn't it be "a sambur deer per bend embattled argent and gules"? — BillC ^talk 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Comment

Although I first thought of a coat of arms as an image, it seems this here is more an article about this coat of arms. So, I reassess it as start. I suppose it looks fairly complete as a description of the image. However, as an article, there is scope for describing the origin of the selection of this coat of arms, its history, usage, etc.Gallador (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Which coat of arms should be used?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC was independently closed as no consensus by two admins:

1. No consensus. Although no editors voiced support for the Escondites version, there were valid concerns that neither version is a sufficiently accurate representation of the actual coat of arms. As suggested by editors below, it may well be worth going back to the drawing board on this. Number 57 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
2. The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While there may be no support for the version drawn by Escondites as opposed to the !votes for Kingyoros' work, the discussion has shown that also Kingroyos' depiction of the arms may have issues that need to be addressed. From a heraldic point of view there is no such thing as "metallic" gold or silver, and the standard for drawing a coat of arms should never be set by existing depictions but only by the blazon. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The second closer reviewed the discussion per an WP:AN request after the first close was reverted by an RfC participant.

If any editor would like to contest the close, please file a closure review at WP:AN.

Cunard (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The work by Escondites (left), the updated one by Kingroyos (right)

Because of the difference in opinion of which COA should be used in articles, I am asking for a wider community consensus. Which file should rather be used on the english wiki, the work by Escondites or the updated COA by Kingroyos? Kingroyos (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support for Escondites work

Support for Kingroyos work

• Y I support this one for the reason i had given below. Kingroyos (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Y Dqfn13 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Y This version is more pleasing and seems to represent the govt version rather well.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I tried to improve the COA to bring it closer to the original one. Both the shape of the shield and bottom banner is completely different from the original COA (see [1] and [2]), the COA of Mauritius has never had such shapes, the colours of the new one is much more beautiful and match the official description (see [3]), whereas the other one doesn't, i also tried to made a more realistic sugarcane. Kingroyos (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• To me neither version looks very much like the image from the government site; both the trees held by the supporters and the trees on the shield are completely different and the gold and white colors are darker on the official version (almost brown and grey). I do wonder why I was invited to comment here. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your reply. I was told a consensus should be found before making any changes, and since no one responded to the discussion, i decided to invite some users who have some knowledge about COA to have their opinion. By the way, according to the official description the colors of the COA are Azur, Gold, Vert, Gules and Argent. Kingroyos (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is just blue, yellow, green, red and white in heraldic terms. For the colors Pantone descriptions are given (Pantone Reflex Blue, Pantone Green and Pantone 2X), while the metals are given as "Metallic Gold" and "Metallic Silver". All of these are still ambiguous, so I'd just assume the government is consistent with its own rules and extract the colors from the image, which are #0752a5, #c6a45a, #009649, #e72221 and #dedede in RGB. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The trees from the older version, and the shield from the newer fersion, seem to best match the government original.

In terms of the heraldic tradition, details like the specific shade of gold, or the way the leaves of the trees are blowing, are not necessarily relevant; that is, a different artist could render the arms in a different way, but they would still be the same arms. However, the name of the file in http://www.aeep-conference.org/logos/logo_mauritius.jpg uses the term "logo", a thing that is less flexible; and I agree that WP should use a file that matches the government graphic as closely as possible.

In my opinion the best solution would be to use the new shield and scroll; the old trees; darken the shade of gold; and for good measure make the dodo's eye smaller, with no visible white. Fishal (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the versions shown match the official version. Due to the various differences being rather vast I would suggest they both go back to the drawing board at this time. Escondites tree's connect correctly-ish but Kingroyos is closer to being accurate. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nford24, a new CoA should be drawn trying to make it as similar as possible to the one from the governament link. FkpCascais (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Though I really am not an authority on this kind of thing, I concur that while the Kingroyos version is more accurate in some respects of shape and color, it does need a little bit more work with respect to some of the colors on the banner and the shape of the sugar cane. Floatsam (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For a free illustration of the coat of arms, as opposed to a fair-use reproduction of a “logo” (whatever the filename), I disagree with the premise that the goal should be to match the official version as closely as possible. For one thing, it can fall afoul of any copyright the artist or institution has on the original artwork (although I have no idea what Mauritius copyright law has to say about state symbols). An emblazonment (depiction) of arms should be an independent creation from the blazon (verbal description), incorporating both heraldic convention and an element of individual artistic style. While it’s quite appropriate to emulate the general ‘look and feel’ of the official rendering, we shouldn’t be comparing every detail.—Odysseus1479 03:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If the goal is not to have an accurate representation, then what is the point?Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

i just wanted to have a more realistic leaves for the sugarcane, anyway it will be a great pleasure if the new COA is improve by anyone.Kingroyos (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

To me the version of Kingroyos matches the arms being used by Mauritius more closely, an exact depiction of that arms shouldn't be the goal. This version matches the blason and that's what's needed. The ribbon isn't being mentioned so that colour is free for interpretation. (or at least in the Netherlands it would be) Dqfn13 (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the same in the British tradition, of which Mauritius' arms is more-or-less a part. I agree that even a version of the arms with a wildly different appearance from the government version would still be correct, heraldically speaking. But it's also better to use a version that's more the same than different to the arms as actually used. For that reason I would still think that using a shade like Gold (color)#Metallic gold would be better than the current bright gold. Fishal (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here in response to a request for closure (WP:ANRFC), but now I was hoping to participate. Have Escondites or Kingroyos produced their illustrations from the blazon, or is one (or are both) basically copies from an online image? Remember that, in most cases, the blazon is the only official standard, and we need not imitate even the government's image. Between the bellies of the dodo and the deer (white versus grey), the banner (coloured or white), and the ribbons below the banner (yellow or red-and-yellow), we have major differences that surely should be mentioned in the blazon, and I'm left guessing that one or the other (if not both) is an inaccurate representation of the blazon. Also, Nford, please read the intro to blazon; two different depictions can be equally accurate. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of Mauritius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721150122/http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/abtmtius/menuitem.64c8475c9c8cb1984d57241079b521ca/ to http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/abtmtius/menuitem.64c8475c9c8cb1984d57241079b521ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)