File talk:Coat of arms of Chile.svg

Coat of arms design

An "official" representation of the coat of arms (B&W)

First of all, I will try to explain the situations.

1. There is no official design of the coat of arms. Most of the designs are just reproductions that have been done through the years. The "most official" image would be the current logo of the Chilean government.
2. The coat of arms doesn't have a deer; it's a huemul. It has antlers, just like any grown huemul has. You could see them in any representation of the coat ([1], [2]), or picture of a huemul ([1] [2]). A huemul without antlers is like the condor without wings.
3. The user Fry1989 insisted some months ago that the coat shouldn't have the "so called" 3d effect because, according to him, the official representation didn't have it. Of course, it didn't... because doesn't exist. But... as you can see, the logo of the government is in relief. The coat is an object, represented in an image; the huemul, the condor and the shield have volume, shades and reliefs. If you can't do it, it's fine... but if you could do it in someway, it's better. Look at the Great Seal of the United Stats and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom: both have shades and reflections trying to make them look with volume. Look also the coat of New Zealand, of Tanzania, of Poland, of Wales and others. I'm not an expert in SVG and if someone could make the coat look more real, perfect... but doing the opposite it's ridiculous.
4. If someone wants an alternative version, it's fine. Create a new version... but why would you start changing this image which is closer to the representations used by the government for other picture in different wikipedias. In fact, the "non-3d" picture is contradictory: it removes the reflection but it keeps the shades in the star instead of being plain (like the one in the flag).

I will revert to the original image with the antlers and the reflection. About the fringe, I've seen different pictures and in some cases it's white, other gold and other tricolor [3]. --B1mbo (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then the crown does not extend that high. Ok, I see it now. The only concern I still have is about the plumage at the top. The design we have right now is very different from any representation of the arms that I have seen. Also for the plumage base, I mostly seen it as all white, not being a tricolor. What can we do about that? (Also, there is no accented letters in the coa, so that needs to be fixed on the ribbon). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

About the plumage, I changed to the current one because it looks better than the previous one and it's technically correct after the heraldic description; but if we can change it to be closer to the official design, perfect. I'm trying to vectorize but I think it will be very difficult. About the base, I don't see a problem keeping it white, but I want to change it to make it look closer to a rope. And finally, about the ribbon... I think the problem is that it came from the former Spanish ortography when capital letters didn't have accent, something that is mandatory now; although, I don't have a problem if the accent is removed. --B1mbo (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On my computer, I fixed the base to make it look like a rope, but I also kept it all white (unless a government image says otherwise). The plumage, I have a base vector design, but it will be also hard. I am also going to remove the accent so I can try and match the arms as much as possible with the official image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok... --B1mbo (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Trace the arms at http://tiempolibre.confort.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Imprime-y-Pinta.pdf for the best plumage that I can forsee. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I would add, that despite B1mbo's stubbornness on the issue,I have uploaded the Non-3D version(giving people a choice, similar to other coats of arms that have both a 3D and Non-3D version available). Whether an official depiction exists or not(an arguement B1mbo is attempting to make), it would make sense that, along with all other Coat of Arms at the time, that this modern "3D" effect did not exist. The arms are being depicted as per the official discription of them from the time of adoption, and a non-3D version would conform with all other Coats of Arms of nations, which do not use 3D as part of their heraldry. Fry1989 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

One other side-note: I was actually hoping that by uploading a non-3D version of the arms, therefor giving a choice, would correct this dispute, but unfortunately, B1mbo seems to feel so threatened by my Non-3D version that he has even accused me of a personal crusade. I will no longer alter his version of the Arms(only reason I did today was for the SVG code, and I DID revert back to his). I will maintain my non-3D version alongside his, and update it with any of his corrections when required, maintinly only the Non-3D shield. I don't wish any further bickering between him and myself on this. Fry1989 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Decreto de Guerra 2271 (1920)

Véase referencia en la Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, donde se ve imagen del escudo, con burelete en diferentes tonos, no blanco. Procederé al cambio en breve. --Echando una mano (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection modification request

Please remove the text in the protection template saying "This file is protected because of edit warring. Sort it out on talk page please." Echando una mano has uploaded their version seperately and therefore the issue does not need to be discussed further. The file should remain protected however to prevent any future reverting by Echando una mano. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have kept the protection against overwriting due to the trenchant and persistent edit-warring. Hopefully the existence of other interpretations may reduce the latter, and of course this does not imply any endorsement as to which is the "official" version. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to modify File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, maintaining the basic lines of the design (including the white torse). --Echando una mano (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done In view of previous edit-warring, it would be preferable for any changes to be agreed by consensus beforehand. I am not competent to judge the merits of any version of this image, so I must leave it up to the involved editors to sort it out for themselves. I am prepared to unprotect the file for an agreed version to be uploaded. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to modify the condor and the huemul. --Echando una mano (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Echando una mano uploaded a different file just because Fry1989 reverted continously his modifications to the file. The version of Echando is clearly an improvement, with better feathers for the condor, better version of the huemul, better feathers. Of course there are some things that can be debated in the coat, considering there is no clear representation of it. I'm surprised Fry1989 reverts the improvements from people that have worked and improved continuously on the file, including me (the original author) or Echando who was that redesigned the supporters. I suggest merging File:Coat of arms of Chile (c).svg, which was uploaded seperately only because Fry1989 requested this file to be protected and say Echando's contributions were vandalism. There is no reason to have it different. --B1mbo (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was protected because Echando una mano has been taking artistic license and changing elements of this image to suit their own whim, often against sources. For example, there is no source for the silver wings that Echando una mano has added to File:Coat of arms of Chile (c).svg, the sources show the wings are full black. The crest is another issue where Echando una mano has ignored the sources. I oppose any merger of the two very different images. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Fry1989 ingnores the main sources: Decreto Supremo nº 1534 (1967), based in the Decreto de Guerra n° 2271 (1920), which has the official image of the coat of arms. All the others are just interpretations about the 1920 model. There is the official version in colour from the Instituto Geográfico Militar chileno (Military Geographic Institute).--Echando una mano (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as you continue on insisting "my sources are better than your sources!", you're not going to get very far. There is zero reason not to have two different files until these sources can all be reconciled. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"My" source is the official and the origin of the design. All the other different interpretations are wrong if they don't agree with the design of 1920. --Echando una mano (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is no reason to have two different files. The problem is that, in your opinion, the current coat of arms is based on sources and the one of Echando una mano is not. The problem is that there is no official source of the coat. The only official image is the one that Echando una mano has shown, which is the official decree with the image which is black and white originally with a crappy resolution. So saying that the condor HAS to be black when it is shown in grayscales in the official decree is absurd. Besides, the Supreme Decree that describes the coat of arms just says "a condor" as a supporter, no other description of it. All condors (or at least most of them) have some white feathers; just because in my earlier design they didn't have it is not because they shouldn't have (I'm not an expert designer).

At this moment, you haven't been able to provide any source that says the condor HAS to be this or that way or that the torse has to be white. So, it is not a problem of "my sources are better than yours". Is that there are only two sources, those that Echando has provided. And, considering there are very loose rules, any artistic representation is just as valid as the current one. If we can have a more realistic and prettier one, much better. --B1mbo (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it "has to be" one way or the other, I said that as there are different sources saying different things, instead of acting like "my sources are better than your sources!", instead there is no harm in having two different images until these sources can be reconciled. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989, "your" sources, in which model are based? Because they have to be based on a first model... I have done the condor wings darker, following your comment and the original model. --Echando una mano (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)