Talk:Coats of arms of the Autonomous Communites of Spain

clarifications

All autonomous communities of Spain (Catalonia whose coat least not officially) with official design of the coat of arms that purpose is as their official logo. Whatever may be other good designs in heraldry but from the official plan would remain half. I recognize the artistic value of many of them but what about putting something similar to what would happen if we put a coat of Germany an alternative design.

Also keep in mind that such Andalusian has no heraldic coat of arms, an emblem.

We talk about sources.

I gave the two generals: The website of a recognized member of the en:Spanish Society of Vexillology Luis Miguel Arias Pérez. author of the book: "Reglamento de banderas actualizado".[1][2] In this web explains in detail giving source (decrees and laws) which are and which are regulated designs law officers. It is a website and is also accredited secondary source.

Another site is official and is the Senate of Spain qui list the laws regulating the symbols of the Autonomous As if that were not enough I've listed the laws in each CC.AA regulates the official design. I will put the links for easy access progressively but even if they have put the reference value written source (the same as the books) Another explanation is that the coats used by commons institutions are legally appear in an official gazette (provincial, regional or state) Finally say that I prefer this to agree on reasonable terms. That could be divided into 3 sections gallery.

• Designs officers
• Unofficial heraldic designs (relief)
• Unofficial heraldic designs (flat)

That is my proposal that I think there should be no problems if the intention is constructive and not (censored). regards.--Miguillen (discursión) 11:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

None of your sources show any drawings that say one is more right than the other, you are simply pushing what you like. I want real sources that show one versiopn is better than the other. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Escribo en español porque veo que me vas a entender igual) En todos lo boletines citados aparece la imagen que se corresponde con el modelo oficial que bien aparece en el correspondiente boletín o en el anexo. También esta la fuente aportada a nivel general que es perfectamente acreditada al tratarse de un miembro de la Sociedad Española de Vexicología así como mostrar todas las leyes o decretos en que se basa citando el correspondiente botetín que yo he enumerado (lo cual aún en caso de ser uno cualquiera sería fuente secundaria) y cumple con las políticas referentes a veracidad. Lo que quieres hacer es una prueba diabólica. No son ni más bonitos ni más feos algo totalmente subjetivo simplemente son los diseños oficials de los escudos es decir el emblema o logotipo oficial de cada comunidad autónoma (que en lenguage coloquial llamamos siempre escudo) y que en la mayor parte de los casos (excepto en el de Andalucía) consiste en un escudo heráldico pero con un diseño concreto. Las imagenes están destinadas a ilustrar artículos, Wikipedia no es una galería de arte y cuando se trata de escudos oficiales hay que poner lo que hay que poner, ni más ni menos. Solo espero que reflexiones y dejes de llevar a cabo este acoso gráfico porque veo que no quieres escuchar no quieres saber sobre el tema para no meter la pata porque ya solo me falta traducirte las fuente inglés. Mi nivel de inglés es muy bajo por lo que siempre tengo que recurrir al traductor de Google pero veo que para nada te esfuerzas en entenderme por lo que es inutil. Y terminando indicar que el que tiene que demostrar que el cambio es mejor es el que lo hace y por ahora no veo ningún argumento objetivo, como tampoco ninguna respuesta hacia mi propuesta que creo que es bastante razonable y dentro del sentido común. Saludos.--Miguillen (discursión) 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You have NO sources, you are the vandal. [http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l5-1984.html is nto a valid source for any colour representation of the Galacian coat of arms, it doesn't show whether File:Coat of Arms of Galicia (Spain).svg or File:Escudo de Galicia.svg is "more accurate", because it's the most basic of black and white drawings. You are the vandal, pushing what you think is better, you have no real sources. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Aunque esté en blanco y negro en la imagen se ve claramente la forma que debe llevar el diseño, el tema no está en los colores los cuales en la mayoría de los caso no están regulados. Está en la forma (diseño de la corona, forma del escudo, diseño y proporciones de las figuras, muebles y particiones etc): Debes abstenerte de revertir hasta que el asunto se aclare, ya he pedido la intervención de otras personas que conozcan bien la situación ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Caf%C3%A9#El_problema_persiste ) y creo que el asunto debe plantearse desde gente que habla español (porque las fuentes están en español) y porque creo que entienden mejor la situación ya que en otro ámbito sin una moderación veo que soy incapaz de aclarar esto.

El tema como ya te he repetido varias veces es que las imagenes que propones independientemente de su valor artístico que no vamos a discutir solo cubre la atribución heráldical que solo es hoy en día una parte del símbolo. El diseño oficial es lo que consideraríamos el logotipo oficial o emblema del territorio y en este caso no pasa como en los municipios que solo tienen con representación a nivel de entidad un blasón que se puede representar de imnumerables formas aunque las entidades que los administran, ayuntamientos tengan un diseño como imagen corporativa que a nivel de logotipo solo representan la institución ya que ni las leyes que regulan los símbolos de entidades locales (cada CC.AA tiene su propia ley) no lo permiten ni aparece como tal en ningún boletín oficial. En el caso de España los símbolos de la comunidades autónomas pueden equipararse a los símbolos de paises en forma a diferencia de los de las entidades locales. Saludos.--Miguillen (discursión) 13:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A black and white drawing is not a source for colour renditions of ANYTHING. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

nadie está hablando de color me refiero a la forma. eso es un plano en el que el color se determina por las líneas (código universaL).

Colores principales			Colores a veces neutros		Metales principales
Azur (Blue)	Gules (Red)	Sinople (Green)	Púrpura (Purple)	Sable (Black)	Oro (golden, yellow)	Plata (silver, whitte)

Con lo cual es absurdo lo que dices y recuerdo nuevamente al margen que Una modificación tiene que tener consenso a no ser que haya que corregir un error lo cual no es el caso y siempre tiene preferencia la edición más estable. Saludos.Miguillen (discursión) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down you both. Throwing each other accusations of vandalism, shouting, etc. doesn't help. And Miguillen is right that most symbols of the AC of Spain are regulated in Laws and Decrees. There has been enough complains that the symbols are being changed without consensus. If you want a particular file moved I request that you start a discussion for each individual file; but this nonsense needs to stop. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I do think it's necessary to assess Fry's actions in this and similar issues. As far as I understand, Fry has the strong believe that their versions of the coats are the right ones. Nothing to say there, as I don't want to enter (yet) into a content discussion. However, instead of uploading his version and going to each project to justify why his version is better that the ones being superseded he's abused the commons tools, by misusing commons delinker to impose his preferred version. I don't think that such a behaviour should be allowed and I do think that his case should be taken to the Administrator's Board so that he's forbidden to do it again. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not my belief at all, you have described the belief of Miguillen. Miguillen has the strong belief that certain renditions are the right ones, and using any other ones is wrong. His hands are all over Wikimedia projects edit warring to force what he thinks is "correct". Some projects want to use different versions, and Miguillen doesn't allow them their free choice, reverting and edit warring to push the ones he says are best. Allowing him to continue doing so only encourages him. I seem to be the only one who will stand in his way of imposition. Do your research, and you will see what Miguillen has done all over Wikimedia. He is the one whose actions need scrutiny and reaction. I stand for the right of projects to chose what ones they want to use, I stand in the way of Miguillen, who if was given free range, would force every single project to use only the versions he thinks are acceptable. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fry, I assume that you're a veteran in the wikimedia projects. So I am. Not only in commons or in the Spanish Wikipedia, but also in the English Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm going to describe what has happened in this article (and I'm not going into content issues, as that's not the point here):

• On 21 February you misused the commons tools to sidestep any discussion and impose your preferred version of a set of coat of arms. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
• On the same day, Miguillen reverted your indirect editions. You were bold, but your editions didn't gather much consensus. From that point on, en:WP:BRD applies.
• On 27 February, you reverted again without any argument and without taking the trouble of explaining anything in here.
• From that point on, the edit war continued, but you again and again asked for sources for reverting your editions when it was the case that you haven't provided any source at all.

As said, I won't analyze the arguments provided by Miguillen (I could do it, as I can understand Spanish quite well) but at least his arguments could be analyzed. Yours are nonexistent. So, you're simply editwarring for the sake of it. Do you want me to open a complaint on you on the Administrator's Noticeboard? I can do it if you wish. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Espero que la traducción no sea mala) I have tried to reach an agreement but it is impossible if the other party does not want. (Yo hice una propuesta para llegar a un acuerdo pero es imposible si una parte no quiere).

Gallery Split into 3 sections (Designs herádicos official unofficial heraldic designs and designs embossed herádicos unofficial planes color (Dividir la galería en tres secciones: Diseños heráldicos oficiales, diseños heraldicos no oficiales en relieve y diseños heráldicos no oficiales en color plano).

You can not impose change persistence based on any Wikimedia project. (no se pueden imponer cambio a base de persistencia en ningún poyecto de Wikimedia)

My error was not reporting the situation before because I was optimistic thinking that would fix sources provide discrepancies. (Mi error ha sido no haber denunciado el caso antes. He sido demasiado optimista pensando que aportando las fuentes requeridas se arreglaría). --Miguillen (discursión) 13:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your error is thinking that you get to dictate what versions are used. You did it here, you did it on English Wikipedia, your hands are everywhere edit warring and forcing the ones YOU think are correct. Other wikipedias and users and articles can choose what they want to use, and YOU have no right to boss them around. If I have to be the one to stand in your way, so be it. You do not own Wikimedia, and just because you're from Spain doesn't give you some superior position regarding Spanish heraldry compared to other users. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I then only have kept existing editions. There was no consensus to carry out an overall massive change made ​​by the user (And I remind you that if consensus not let the version that has been stable over time). Exactly what you would have to apply and does not act without knowing why things are done (document yourself).

I've seen that has had many problems trying to leave only one version of the images in commons (with differences) canceling or imposing other changes that led to blockade several times. You do not hear or read the reasons, do not try to reach agreements and seek any excuse to impose. It's not Spanish is that I have access to sources that you did not even have bothered to read. I just pretend that readers have good information and in this case I think it has more value preferred artistic images of the real face that best illustrated in many articles.

I do not like conflict and I should not exist if the common goal would be to improve the encyclopedia.--Miguillen (discursión) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You "only keep existing editions"??? Then why did you completely change this page from the way it had been for 3 years??? That's not keeping the existing edition, that's changing it for no reason other then because you think certain versions are better. You think you own this project and can dictate what should be. You don't belong here with that attitude. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And BTW I've reverted the page to the version prior to Fry's indirect editions. Fry, you're invited to provide sources and arguments that justify why your versions are better that the ones that already exist. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I did no such thing, Admin:Odder reverted the page back to how it was before Miguillen replaced everything, per my request. Look at this history of this page, I didn't use CommonsDelinker on it at all. I'm asking Odder to again revert because you're too incompetent to look at the history. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dedaro created this page, it should be how he wanted it, not how Miguillen thinks it should be, and you spin this issue on it's head and say I'm the one imposing things? You have no clue what you're talking about, and you're allowing Miguillen to use you. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@FrY1989 The current version is the one that has remained stable over time (more than one year). Not that I have now as there coats as the d Asturias is not official. Only is to return to the status quo. Leaving unfounded accusations think that if anything should be discussed is a way to agree on my proposal and I see no response.--Miguillen (discursión) 11:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)