Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insigne Helveticum.svg
This image is intended to represent the coat of arms of Switzerland, but it is inaccurate, and therefore not useful. The correct coat of arms (e.g., File:Coat of Arms of Switzerland (Pantone).svg) features a cross whose bars are slightly longer than wide (see en:Flag of Switzerland), whereas this image features a cross whose arms are as long as they are wide. - The creator of this image has without discussion replaced other correct versions of the coat of arms in Wikipedia articles with this image; all of this will have to be reverted. Sandstein (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- In accordance with heraldic convention, you should pay notice to this:
-Ssolbergj (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please engage in this discussion before you make any changes. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- But the blazon of the Swiss coat of arms as defined in law clearly says: "The coat of arms of the federation is, within a red field, an upright white cross, whose [four] arms of equal length are one and a sixth times as long as they are wide." This image does not conform to that blazon, and is therefore in error. Sandstein (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Probably nitpicking, but that isn't a blazon; the blazon would be "Gules, a cross couped Argent", i.e., red with a white cross that doesn't touch the edges of the shield. Not saying that's a reason not to follow the geometric specifications, though heraldically, the exact dimensions of the cross don't matter, as any image that follows that blazon is correct. SiBr4 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Ssolbergj is creating a catalog of national coats of arms in Latin. They should be kept. Fry1989 eh? 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does not address the reason for deletion. Sandstein (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ssolbergj can easily update the image to fix the proportions of the cross. Fry1989 eh? 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's now done. -Ssolbergj (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ssolbergj can easily update the image to fix the proportions of the cross. Fry1989 eh? 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does not address the reason for deletion. Sandstein (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- But the blazon of the Swiss coat of arms as defined in law clearly says: "The coat of arms of the federation is, within a red field, an upright white cross, whose [four] arms of equal length are one and a sixth times as long as they are wide." This image does not conform to that blazon, and is therefore in error. Sandstein (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please engage in this discussion before you make any changes. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This version clearly does not exist or is misleading and potentially erroneous and User:Ssolbergj image edits are already leading to confusion as can be seen here [1]. Gryffindor (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It is neither misleading nor erroneous; the subject is heraldry, and accordingly, as already mentioned, please see this template, for example: Template:Coa blazon. - Ssolbergj (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Changing the COAs to false ones and make them uniform template is wrong and not credible. Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs onlys (such as File:Arms of Spain.svg).— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.h. king (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment "false ones"? We've just underlined why this isn't a "false" coat of arms. Please pay notice to those arguments, and respond, instead of concluding. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It is not an sufficient reason, simply compare Category:Coats of arms of Switzerland. But as the CoA is really similar and the argument "leading to confusion" is reasonable, we should simply tag it with
{{Fictional|CoA}}
if {{Coa blazon}} is not sufficient, but maybe that is also to much not necessary. The CoA is indeed not generally "false one" but indeed not the official one. ↔ User: Perhelion 12:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No clear consensus, here, to delete. The case has been taken to the wider community at COM:VPP, and discussion should occur there. --Reventtalk 07:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)