Talk:Coat of arms of Luxembourg

I propose to update the old arms, that were made by or based on drawings by Ssolbergj to these files.

• 
  Greater Coat of arms
• 
  Middle Coat of arms
• 
  Lesser Coat of arms

There are in the same style that Ssolbergj currently uses. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No. There are several reasons why they are not acceptable. Fry1989 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no reasons why it is not acceptable. Hating a certain style is not a valid reason. I've seen you bullying Ssolbergj with a similar issue, on his own file, even abusing your admin powers for it. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and this has nothing to do with a certain style. It's about accuracy. There are gonna be people who disagree with you, that doesn't give you the right to throw around terms like "bully", and call them admin power abusers when they AREN'T EVEN ADMINS!. If you really cared about the article, you would want it to be as accurate as possible. These versions are not. Fry1989 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on the wrong link. My bad. In any case, I suggest you leave heraldry to people who at least understand it. There is no official style, and the version you prefer lacks details in the order. If you want to be accurate, you will need to undo your reverts. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Per my talk, you do not have the right to push ancient rules upon modernity. That mentality is not welcome and I will not put up with it. I will not allow you to force these inaccurate versions upon the article without consensus, and will seek article protection if I must. Fry1989 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are rules for heraldry, and there is heraldic tradition in countries. Your original (lack of) research is not welcome. You are forcing inaccurate versions. You lack knowledge about heraldry, and try to spread misconceptions and inaccurate designs. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is not a matter of style. I suggested these, and placed them here. I did not force this style on this article. Now, I do, because I have found that the previous versions contain mistakes. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the one seeking the new style, YOU must find consensus. Those are the rules. If you do not stop, I will be forced to seek protection. This superiority complex you heraldist have is beyond arrogant. I don't have to be a well-versed heraldist to know when something doesn't look like how it is actually used by the Luxembourg Government. Fry1989 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But you can't seem to do that either, otherwise you would have noticed the mistakes. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have been given some links a couple to Luxembourg Government PDFs, on Commons. One shows both supporters as single-tailed, while the other shows them BOTH double-tailed. (HERE for single-tailed, and HERE for both double-tailed). So there's the proof that YOU'RE wrong, and that the rules of heraldry DON'T always have to be followed. So maybe you should loose this attitude that just because you're well-versed in some ancient tradition that you're somehow more right than poor uneducated me.

For simplicity however, I have altered all the files which I support, to have both supporters (left & right) as single-tailed. Fry1989 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Les petites armoiries augmentées des supports: Deux lions d´or et couronnés du même, la tête contournée (regardants), armés et lampassés de gueules, la queue fourchue et passée en sautoir.

One of those sources has a unclear image, I do seem to think that they did depict the double tail, but the pure black version made it unclear. But in any case, the law that it goes with does mention the "queue fourchu". The image is merely an illustration, it is the law that counts. And that text does say that the lions should have the "queue fourchu", double tail. You have been handed proof that I am right, Fry. Adelbrecht (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: And the stuff with a single supporter being double tailed, that's the arms of the monarch! Are you even paying attention to anything I've said or shown? Adelbrecht (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, ignore the facts. You said that it's a "serious heraldic mistake" to have a right supporter with a double-tail, and I have shown you a government source showing that YOU are the one who is wrong. If you can't even be humble enough to admit that your wrong, I have nothing more to say to you. As for your "the image was unclear" excuse, nobody will believe that. Both sources I have provided above are explicitly clear, with the first showing them both single-tailed, the second showing them both double-tailed. Either get rid of your attitude that you're always right, IN SPITE of Government sources, and talk to me as an equal rather than a poor uneducated idiot, or leave me and this article alone. Your choice. Fry1989 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the facts. The sources you give show that you are wrong. Your only source is an unclear photocopy. Instead of admitting this, you keep ignoring all the facts. You need to get rid of your attitude that you are always right. Your own sources speak against you. Please read and review your own sources, or leave the article alone. It's your choice, Fry. I've tried explaining it to you, I've cited your sources, yet you refuse to listen. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're either blind, or too proud to admit that both my sources show either both supporters single-tailed or double-tailed. i have nothing more to say to you. If you continue to try and push the new unauthentic versions on this article without consensus, as the rules state, I will continue to revert you, and will be forced to seek file protection. My distaste has nothing to do with the rules of heraldry, or with certain stules. It is about authenticity, and matching official sources in their style as best we can. Just because you think a new style looks good, that doesn't mean it's right to replace the other versions("I like it" isn't accepted here), which are closer to the Arms in the style the Government uses them. Fry1989 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are blind!!! You refuse to read your own sources! Don't be so proud of yourself, and get some glasses or something! I have tried correcting this, and you kept reverting to your own errors. Now, you've added even more errors! Are you doing this on purpose? Adelbrecht (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Understanding inconsistencies

I hadn't seen this debate before my intervention on Fry's wall. I just like to precise one thing or two about official texts. The two versions of the state arms shown by fry are indeed differently illustrated; let's try to understand why.

• First, both blazons are the same and preconise two double-tailed lions as supporters.
• Second, these two laws are not on the same level. The first is the original law of 1972. The second is the corrective law of 1993. As usual in law, only the most recent version is to be followed.
• Third, The modified art.5 explicitly says "Les armoiries du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, le drapeau national et le pavillon de la batellerie et de l’aviation sont reproduits en annexe à la présente loi, le texte seul faisant foi" (the CoA and flags are drawn in annexe of the law, but the text only is to be considered). Asame, the modified art.2 mentions that "La loi du 23 juin 1972 sur les emblèmes nationaux est complétée par une annexe comportant le texte et la mélodie de l’hymne national. Cette annexe fait partie intégrante de la loi." (the lyrics and melody of the hymn are annexed to the law, this annexe is a part of the law). The legislative power felt necessary to mention that for the coats of arms the annexe is of a different nature than for the hymn. There are therefore three different things in these laws :

• the text of the law
• the hymn annexe which is part of the law
• the heraldic graphic annexes which ARE NOT part of the law.

The only reliable information of these texts is therefore the blazon, which mentions double-tailed lions as supporters of the state CoA. The 1972 annexe showed erroneous arms. It was corrected by the 1993 annexe, and the law took note of this possibility of an error of the graphist by mentionning that these annexes are STRICTLY ILLUSTRATIVE. I would conclude that seeking for an "official type" only on the hand of graphism is not satisfying for nowaday blazonings, which are very (I would say too much) precise. I would also conclude that medieval and early modern heraldry is definatly much more interesting because it does not implies long juridic demonstrations.

As for the monarch, things are much more simple, as we have two coherent laws (feb and jun 2001) and an explicative notice (2006) mentionning two different supporting lions : a double-tailed (luxembourg) lion on the left, to match with the luxembourg quarter, and a single-tailed (nassau) lion on the right, to match with the nassau quarter.

Katepanomegas (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The inconsistencies mentioned above have been corrected. However, the incivility and insulting language that the other user has felt neccesary to address me with will be held on record. Fry1989 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You have insulted me. I've only thrown the stuff you said back. You were uncivil. See, you're just accusing me of the things you've done yourself. That's why this whole thing took so long. If you had read your own texts, you would have seen everything Katepanomegas told you. Adelbrecht (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

YOU started the whole arguement. All I did was reply to the original post saying that in my personal opinion, the change is not acceptable. I go to bed, and then the next day wake up to you BLARING at me, saying I'm abusing admin powers, that I'm a bully, and that I have no idea what I'm talking about, and ever since then you have maintained an attitude of "I'm an expert, you're not, so leave it to the adults and go sit an the kiddie table". YOU exacerbated the whole thing, and YOU are the one who is rude. All the evidence is on here and my talk page. YOU started it, and this whole arguement is the result of YOUR attitude towards somebody having a different opinion and disagreeing with you. Fry1989 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna be blunt here:

Both of you, shut the fuck up and start acting like adults.

You're both acting like terribly spoiled children saying "Naa naaa naaa I'm right you're wrong oh and you're a meanie meanhead! You're poop!" It needs to stop right fucking now or I am finding an admin to block you both indefinitely until you both come to your senses. I offered at the incredibly premature ArbCom case to mediate this dispute between the two of you. I am still willing to do so. But you both need to grow the fuck up before you get fucking blocked. Is that crystal fucking clear? → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm already there. I am simply waiting for Adelbrecht to stop throwing around insults, and pretend he didn't start the whole issue. Am I not allowed to reply on an article talk page without getting blared at and being called names? I have no problem discussing this issue, and coming to an agreement, but that is dependent on one other person, who so far, has had no interest in anything but calling me names, and insisting that because I don't know as much as him regarding heraldry, that I'm somehow less of a valid person to discuss this matter. There, my point has been made, and I am ready to talk. We shall see what choice Adelbrecht makes. Fry1989 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop pretending to be innocent of insulting and calling names. I did start this issue. The problem is that we're both stubborn, and that I'm terrible at explaining stuff clearly. English is not my first language, a lot of nuance and subtlety goes lost in translation. But that's no reason to put all the blame on me, Fry. You were at least as rude as I were. I'm terrible at explaining, but you seem terrible at trying to listen to my attempts to do so. I have no further intent of continuing with this waste of time. And to be honest and rude, I was right. And I won't apologize for defending the truth. But again, I have no further intent to continue this waste of time, with issues that should never have happened. Adelbrecht (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• So... no interest in discussion then? Your loss. → ROUX ₪ 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to talk. I just wanted to get my point across, and that has been done. So Roux, don't claim we're both unwilling to talk (as you just did in your edit summary). I have made it quite clear I am (under the condition I be spoken to as an equal person). Fry1989 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Roux, I have no intent in taking this further. I've said that I'm stubborn, and that I'm bad at explaining things. I'm not going to apologize to him when he keeps painting himself as a victim. I seriously doubt the fact that this mentality is going to change, especially because he has now added some junk about 'equality'. Because this mentality will probably not change, and I still have a stubborn sense of dignity, this discussion will go nowhere, and it would be a further waste of my time, and also Fry's time. Also, I don't need a mediator, especially someone who has up to now sworn more than all the rudest remarks Fry and I have shared. Adelbrecht (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Arms of the Monarch

Maybe not everyone, who is interested in it has seen it till now, but on Commons I started a discussion about the right colors for this COA. The only official things I found shows a COA with a "greyish" silver, not white, as it is here. But in 2011 User:Fry1989 said the "Community is asking for it white" - so what have been the reason for that change? Only the fact, that silver in COA has to be white? Come on, there are a lot of official COAs, where silver isn't white. And at least if say rules are rules, don't matter what the offical webpage of the Grand Duke and other things says, the (an the other files related to it) has another problem: gold is not yellow, so it shouldn`t it be changed to this version: !? There is more than one question left. So, if you can help or have some facts I/we haven`t found, please follow us to commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Armoiries_Luxembourg_Bourbon_avec_ornements.svg)! *SGR* (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact; in heraldry, 'Argent' represents silver, and 'Or' represents gold. They are just conventionally represented as white and yellow. Hence the reason Or and Argent are referred to as the heraldic 'metals. Indeed, Arthur Fox-Davies; in his book 'Complete Guide To Heraldry' makes the argument that 'White' is an heraldic tincture separate from Argent.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Great coat of arms of Luxembourg.svg
• Lesser coat of arms of Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.svg
• Middle coat of arms of Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lesser coat of arms of the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg prior to 2000.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arms of the Duke of Limburg.svg
• Middle coat of arms of the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg prior to 2000.svg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)