Talk:Armorial of Spanish autonomous communities

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Armorial of Spanish autonomous communities is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Armorials design at the English Wikipedia

The latest version showed the widely heraldic used at the English Wikipedia, please don´t revert. Earlier version didn´t show the official design in all cases. All the latest versions are right acording to sources. You can check all have the same elements comparing versions and you can check most of the earlier versions aren´t official at the sources. In addition, the earlier gallery had different designs so the final result is worse (I think It is easy to check, comparing the different version) (in heraldry is common that the Armorials show the same style, it is a basic rule). Finally There aren´t reasons for changes, and these designs are widely used at the Spanish Wikipedia, different designs should be showed, specially if this style is the used at the English Wikipedia Heraldic Galleries e.g. List of coats of arms of the United Kingdom Coat of arms of the United Kingdom List of coats of arms of France.

Please, not delete again don´t wars of edition, Solid arguments for latest version are showed

if one user wants to rever please : use the dispute resolution guidelines.

--Galico (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see only minor differences of style. Is there something substantive that I've overlooked? —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On one side there is no convention or wikipedia policy that says you have to use a particular style.

Use gradients and two-tone breaks the rules of heraldry The official designs are more intervals are illustrative and design rules well defined. It is essential to use reliable sources on wikipedia and provide accurate information.--Miguillen (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you can't use gradients in heraldry? source please? Shading is a major part of heraldic design only lacked in primitive emblazonments. Tinynanorobots (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of coats of arms of Spain

Everything here is also in List of coats of arms of Spain. Should this become a redirect to the relevant section of that list, or should the big page have a link to here? —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Galico (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone has anonymously brought the stuff back. O joy. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if i bothered you darling, my move was intended to help an editor to use the Spanish "escutcheons" correctly (check Template:Autonomous communities of Spain page history)...

Morever, I revived this article, in order to complete the outline of symbolism of Spain's autonomies:

Best regards from Iberia ;) 85.56.146.5 (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you going to remove them from List of coats of arms of Spain? —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 85.56.146.5 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

I have reverted the changes by Miguillen. He needs to provide sources that one version is somehow more intrinsically correct than the other for each that he changed. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before they were well and gave no sources change. Each of the corresponding images have on its label the link which is described in its official version.

You should assess the illustrative value of the official artistic values versus personalistic pictures that brighten the eye but illustrative detract.

Note that we are lucky enough to appear in Spain than in the corresponding designs official bulletins are public domain so they can take advantage. greetings.--Miguillen (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were reverted, you have not provided any sources, therefore you should not change back to how you want it. I'm asking for an admin to revert your changes. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coats_of_arms_of_the_autonomous_communities_of_Spain&diff=450581471&oldid=450307284 and if I have given an explanation and not fall into something diavólico and imnecesario since the reference was added to the labels. It is you who give the button only brings without having the slightest idea of the matter.--Miguillen (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been using the superior artistic renditions for nearly 2 1/2 years until you just came along today to change them to how you think is better. I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, Adelbrecht and Heralder both also have problems with your insistence that there is something wrong with the versions you don't like. You didn't post sources despite my request, and for that reason I have asked an admin to revert your changes. You do not own these articles, you do not get to dictate what versions can be used without providing sources to back up your claims. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, with the link given by Miguillen, I think it's quite clear what the consensus is, and the accusations remain unproven, after all these years. Adelbrecht (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I if I brought the matter sources because I know very well. I already documented to es:Escudo de Navarra article in Spanish Wikipedia and to make the illustrations that were necessary. Besides the one to justify the change in wikipedia is that which does not not want to be made and when fully demonstrating that the previous version is correct and est case is not that it is submitted that neither sources has even defend an argument that change. Nobody owns any items but need to make changes and discuss consensus from valid arguments. In this case there is none. regards.--Miguillen (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That concerns a different file, and a flag at that (putting heraldry like that on flags is simply asking for trouble), and FIAV is not an organization which legally defines those colours as far as I am aware. They are of no concern here in any case, this being a purely heraldic article. And I don't really understand the rest of your comment. Adelbrecht (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miguillen it is yourself that has no consensus. The article has used these files for 2 and 1/2 years, then you just come along to change them. It is you who has made a change, it is you that needs consensus for it if it has been reverted. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the admin Fry is referring to. I am not going to revert Miguillen's changes because I generally do not get involved in content disputes. However, I will comment about the situation itself. When an editor (Miguillen) makes a change to an article and is reverted by another editor (Fry), the normal course of action is to follow WP:BRD, meaning the first editor (Mguillen) generally does not restore their change until a consensus has been reached. I'm not going to offer my opinion as to whether a consensus has been reached regarding the content, but it appears there is NOT a consensus for Miguillen's changes. Therefore, in terms of Wikipedia procedure, Miguillen, you should consider reverting your change, continue the discussion here, and if no consensus can be reached, use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for further context. Fry1989 has used commons tools (CommonsDelinker) to sidestep this discussion and force his version on all other projects whilst there is obviously a dispute. See further details here. There seems to be a consensus on removing his filemover rights in commons. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus on Commons to remove my file mover right? Doesn't look that way to me. The same way Miguillen had no consensus to change this article from a state it had been in for 2 and 1/2 years. I tried to side-step this discussion? Again let's see, Miguillen changed this page from a previous state, and was reverted once by myself. After reverting him, I started this discussion as part of the BRD process. He side-stepped this discussion by reverting me back to his original change instead of following the principle of BRD. Everything you say about me, Miguillen has actually done here. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at history you will see that leave the previous version before they even leave your opinion BRD thus understand that is not already discussed here. As if kept consensus is that he had been long absent and now I've come back because in some way I'm content with keeping things in specific cases such as the articles of the regions fulfilling the agreement I reached with Heralder in time.--Miguillen (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted back to how things were for the past 2 & 1/2 years only after Adelbrecht came along and also told you what you were doing is wrong. You still didn't follow BRD. You made a change, it was reverted with a discussion started on the talk page, and you ignored that and instead reverted again. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]