File talk:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg

Image is bad; mottos; etc.

This image is bad, e.g. the state motto in Lithuanian is wrong! This is because Madden used Wikipedia's sources to create it. Such sources cannot be considered reliable. Besides, images there are erroneous! It is much better to use [version], because it's direct source is the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which is reliable at least in this context. 203.167.88.67 08:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the motto issue. --Hapo 11:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some corrections to the Lithuanian and Estonian mottos but they're still not perfect. The Lithuanian motto is missing a character and some diacritics and the Estonian one has a wrong diacritic in the first word. --Hapo 12:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Colors

Colors are bad too. --Pianist 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pianist! I've found your message in the discussion page of image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg. Since I have modified the colours recently, I would like to know how do you think about it. If you have some suggestions, please tell me. Thank you and best regars, F l a n k e r 18:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's looking better, but color of the oceans is bad. Look here.

From constitution:

В цветном изображении Государственного герба Союза Советских Социалистических Республик серп и молот, солнце и колосья золотые; водная поверхность земного шара голубая, материки светло - коричневые; лента красная; звезда красная, обрамленная золотой каймой.

That means:

Gold: Hammer & sickle, sun, ear of wheat.

Sky blue: water.

Light brown: land.

Red: ribbon; star with gold border. --Pianist 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mhmm, this helps. I must to do also the ear of wheat in gold. So we can try these colours:

	Gold (picked from your image)
	Sky blue (taken from en:Azure (color)#Sky blue)
	Light brown (I've lighten the en:brown)
	Red (simple RGB red FF0000)

What do you tink abuot? If you want to change someting, please do it. After we got the best colours, I can change the SVG. --F l a n k e r 23:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This colors are better:

	Gold (html gold: #FFD700)
	Sky blue (also may translating as "light blue")
	Light brown (brown must be lighter)
	Red (hex RGB red #FF0000)

--Pianist 08:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's OK for gold (wich is very close to the actual yellow) and the red, but light blue and light brown are too much light: I've applied them to the file, but the land and the sea colours are too much close. What do you thinking about #eba000:

--F l a n k e r 12:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Add thin border to land (my colors are right) --Pianist 14:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done --F l a n k e r 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Pianist 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the bad link to the image in the 3rd edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE) in the image description should be changed to this one. Second, you see, that in GSE image water is not in "Sky blue", it's far more darker, and land is not in "Light brown", it's also far more darker. So, please, change these two colors on the image to darker versions. 158.129.152.246 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Soviet Union and Russian SFSR

Hi! Can you also edit border: [1]
1. Border of Earth and Hammer & sickle must be a bit thicker (for little images)
2. It's t too thick.
3. Orange dot.

And there is error in tool handle in [2]. This is right tool handle: [3] --Pianist 09:05, 26 dic 2007 (CET)

1. Border to 3px for the hammer and the sickle, to 4px for the Earth.
2. I think it's an oprical effect, I've copy and mirrored it... weird.
3. Eliminated.

For the Image:COA_Russian_SFSR.png i see what i can do. Cheers! --F l a n k e r 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be authentic, NOT a stamp outline.

The Emblem of the USSR as used on Wiki should be true to its authentic design, in that it should be a realistic depiction of the red ribbon around the wreath of wheat and the globe over the sunrise which includes proper shading. On authentic works, NOT based on contemporary SVG renderings, the shading is clearly seen, as here, here, here, and even here. I have previously uploaded an improved file reflecting this, however Fry1989 has insisted that he have the final say in this matter and has shown no tolerance for any improvements, and has even threatened to report me for this improvement. If anyone has or can make a better version reflecting the authentic version, by all means it should be uploaded to supersede the current file. However, the current file is primitive and doesn't reflect authentic works.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, my friend, but you know, Wikipedia is being created by everybody, not by experts. That means you only get a mean general public level quality of the articles and pictures. Admins are from among these people, too. Once I had a dispute with some Brit who said that "everybody knows" that the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, and my assurance of the contrary was invalid on the sole circumstance that I was a Lithuanian, not British.

Hence, if you want quality, you better find some other place. But I also wish you luck in your efforts. -JohnnyWiki (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Michaelwuzthere, your psuedo-3D effects make the file look hideous, they vary from source to source, and your edit warring to push them past the first revert was not acceptable behaviour. If you can get a consensus for what is a major change to the image, then you can apply it. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, if you think the improved file looks "hideous", then you are more than welcome to make constructive improvements upon it in such a way that reflects the authentic style, including the proper shading, rather than reverting to the more primitive version simply because it doesn't conform to your personal tastes. The I just don't like it mentality is counter-productive.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you know what's counter-productive? Edit warring to force your changes on a file after you have been reverted, instead of trying to get a consensus on the talk page, and only stopping such behaviour under threat of a report. The rules are simple here, be bold, if reverted take it to talk. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? What do you think this being done right now? I don't know why you're choosing to be hostile over the matter. How about actually addressing the point of concern?--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me address the point of concern. I have just consulted a Russian book called Сборник нормативных актов по вопросам применения государственных символов ("Collection of Regulatоry Acts on the Use of State Symbols") published in 1986. In it, there is an ordinance called "Regulations on the State Coat of Arms of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" enacted on March 31, 1980. In its text, it mentions no shading. Nor is any shading visible in the official drawing attached to the text. Hence, we may conclude that all the multitude of the shaded versions are nothing but unofficial versions of the coat of arms. They were made, I suppose, for the simple reason to make the coat of arms more visually attractive, nicer. They were made because the official version lacks life and joy in itself.

This, dear Michaelwuzthere, does not invalidate what I said earlier in this topic about the general level of Wikipedia's quality. -JohnnyWiki (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking at all, I'm very serious. You attempted to make what is a very different change to the image, you were reverted, and instead of talking it immediately to talk like you should have, you edit warred a further two times, and the only reason you stopped and came here is because I told you the next time you revert I would report you for edit warring. Don't pretend you came here out of your own volition. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again you're not saying anything that has to do with the subject, but instead insist on attacking me for uploaded in the improved file to begin with and how I put an explanation in the revert rather than going to the talk page. How about we actually stick to the subject at hand, which is improving the file to conform to authentic works rather than to your personal taste.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)