Template talk:Navarre-geo-stub

The work preferred by Miguillen (left), the work preferred by Fry1989 (right)

Considering there is a dispute between which image should be used to represent Navarre, I am initiating this RFC. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who does not give objective reasons is Fry1989. I've dajado clear my opinion and I have yet to see a source where a flag appears with a shield that resembles a word in colored relief. Besides the shield does not follow the same criteria as the other maps flag. And the funny thing is that now come with big reason that my design is only when I am the only one who raised entirely objective reasons and the only reason given Fry1989 that is entirely subjective.--Miguillen (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Naturally. My preferred image is a more stable file and equally as correct of a representation as the other. The opposition provided by Miguillen is based solely on artistic preference with no sources. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - The source for Miguillen's flag, as linked on the file page, shows a gradient. After all these years I have yet to see an authoritative text banning the use of relief. If that is the case, many reconstructed flags on Commons, as well as historical flags on commons are wrong. Furthermore, the file by Miguillen uses two different shades of red. The faux-gradient with black bars also defeats the purpose. Concerning FIAV-colours, I am familiar with the FIAV colour descriptions to describe flag colours by shade (e.g. R++ for very dark red). Where do these "FIAV Colours" originate from? The FOTW website uses community consensus colours which they linked to the FIAV colors. I can not find official "FIAV Colours" on the FIAV website. The FIAV flag itself is standardised with Pantone colours. That's something I'd like to see cleared out, independently of the question whether Navarre officially uses these "FIAV Colours". I do not want to get involved in another debate over aesthetics, I have gotten sick of that long ago. I vote a weak support for Fry's preferred image because of the composition. The larger coat of arms with thicker lines results in an image that can be more easily recognized at 30px size. These matters can be addressed in the Miguillen file. Adelbrecht (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: this image no where the gradient look I see the whole crown using the same golden tone. Here is a little better: [1] As I said the discussion here is not about a coat but a flag with coat which usually appears in these painted or embroidered and this version represents an embossed something that is not usual in coats. It is not natural or real. Nor would it be the same to talk of degraded representations in relief.

On the other hand I think it is appropriate that this follow the same criteria map flag other regions of Spain. As for color Coat reason is that were determined to be different elements and takes the flag colors of flag and emblem coat. It is very common to see banners that use a different color palette on the bottom and on the coats though if this is an obstacle to change. Regards.--Miguillen (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second picture you posted seems to be worthy of imitation. I would propose as a solution a flat-coloured flag and flagmap following that file. Thick black shield and crown cap outline, no outlines on the gold and silver (or outlines of same colour), a colour of gold closer to the posted image instead of the rather greenish colour on the file of Miguillen, the red can stay as Miguillen prefers. The black faux-gradient is in conflict with the image too, doesn't fit with embroidery either. Enlarge the coat of arms on the flagmap for better visibility. Compara also with this. Would that be a reasonable compromise? Adelbrecht (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't have to compromise at all. Miguillen has constantly edit warred and reverted various pages and articles regarding this issue for years and never posted any sources during that entire time or gained any support from other users. Miguillen has no right to dictate what images we can and can not use based on their personal artistic opinion, but they have taken on that role themselves which is why I was forced to start this AN. I want a choice between the two images we have now, not an appeasement. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, though I shall not continue with it. I shall share my findings on the FIAV colours. File:Explicación relieve corona.svg is incorrect, da121aff is not the standard FIAV colour. It is a community consensus of the Spanish Heraldry and Vexillology project (link), which are described using FIAV terms. (In a related note, this means that all people who change flags based on these supposed FIAV colours are mistaken, and I've seen such changes happen quite a few times. That ought to be addressed on a scale beyond this discussion.) I hope this information will prove useful to you, Fry. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like this?? Just would have to adjust the tone Gold.--Miguillen (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's close to what I meant, yes. A thicker line on the red cap in the crown, and no vertical stripes in the inside of the crown. I believe that would closely emulate the official version. Adelbrecht (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguillen has been a thorn in my side for two years, reverting and controlling what images can or can not be used on various articles, but never a source and never another user who actually agreed with them. There was a time I was willing to compromise, but not after what I have been through. I like File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg, it's derived flag and flag map, many users do. More importantly, I see no faults in their construction. It is solely Miguillen who forcefully opposes the use of these images under their own artistic POV that they are somehow "wrong". Why should that be tolerated any longer? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That that you have tried to reach an agreement sometime and I have not provided sources is false. Again you you resort to personal disqualification untruthfully because you have no arguments. If you position is to be black or white because I say so and if a user does not agree with you is a troll or vandal. Well you can never reach an agreement.--Miguillen (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any sources that File:Coat of Arms of Navarre .svg is a wrong representation except for your personal claims. I on the other hand provided a source that supports the file and you made excuses that it wasn't right because it was embroidery. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That image has no effect highlight all the gold has same color, same with the other colors which do not demonstrate that you want. Besides that, this image is a repostero not a flag. I do not speak a coat of armas I speak of a flag thus not change the subject. Represents a different coat of armas painted or embroidered one is what is put in a flag. Have a source in the description of image: the official site where you see the flag with an embroidered coat of armas without relive those effects.--Miguillen (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same thing, they're both made of fabric whether you call it a flag or a banner or a repostero or whatever else. You were given a source and say it's wrong. You aren't interested in sources different from what you want. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same. A heraldic repostero is made of velvet embroidery also can be mounted with pieces of the same material. A flag is cloth and coat can be painted or embroidered. But still not have that embossed effect.

This is a flag.--Miguillen (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC comment Regardless of the heraldic and vexiollogical details, the left version is nearly completely indistinguishable, while the right is clearly more recognisable as Navarra's coat of arm. So from a purely graphical point of view, I without a doubt support the latter. Should it really be unacceptable because of said heraldry & vexiollogy, then a new version based on the left one must be created, that is at least as recognisable as the right one. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one on the right is only "unacceptable" to a single user who has not been able to substantiate in any manner what is actually wrong with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC comment: I'm here because of a bot notice. I prefer the colors and scale on the left and the clarity and detail on the right. I see there is some question of the heraldry & vexiollogy accuracy, so I'd say go with the left one and fine tune it to show the detail. If that can be done, then I vote for the one on the left. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-involved RfC note – This is a Great taste vs. Less filling debate between two editors who cannot cooperate. I'm going to put this on my watchlist and close at day 30. Of course community WP:CONSENSUS will be the primary factor in my closing, but the nastiness I've seen in this template's edit history will be a factor if consensus is not clear. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• RfC comment I prefer Fry1989's design. If no agreement can be reached then I would suggest that a third party provides a slightly different design and this is used instead, and neither Fry1989 nor Miguillen contribute further to the discussion on this image. Atshal (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I prefer the image on the right as it has more clarity and utility for the reader.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fry1989 Image is better. Think about what is the important issues here. You are volunteers working to create an encyclopedia which has a main objective of being informative, a place where people doing research can find reasonably accurate, factual information. Clarity in the flag designs proposed here is what should decide the issue when you are working to be encyclopedic. Obviously the Fry1989 variant is superior in clarity and readability than the version suggested by M. Pick the Fry1989 version and move on. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]