Talk:Coat of arms of the Netherlands

Je maintiendrai
See here

Fair use rationale for Image:RoyalFlagNetherlands.jpg
Image:RoyalFlagNetherlands.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

which is the best coat of arms of the Netherlands?
For the past days there have been several reverts regarding the placement of a new version of the coat of arms with (if I understand correctly) better graphical quality, but visually different and thus according to some less suitable. I have no opinion on the matter, but note that there is at this point no consensus for change and I have seen the issue discussed nowhere. I suggest discussion takes place here and will revert to the old version for now (which says nothing about the final outcome, just that it now is clearly without consensus). L.tak (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The older arms is a bad SVG file. A link to the PNG version of that Coat of Arms, being used a lot in the Netherlands, can be useful on this article though. There is no official design of the coat of arms, and this design matches with the recent coats of arms created for the UK, France, Denmark and a lot of other countries. Adelbrecht (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Op basis van deze beschrijving en de heraldische regels mag een tekenaar zelf bepalen in welke stijl en vorm een wapen gemaakt wordt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelbrecht (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Adelbrecht's point that the new version follows the heraldic description seems valid, but I would like to see a direct link to the official koninklijk besluit so everyone can check.
 * The second point that the current SVG is not of high quality (although I never noticed in the small versions included in the articles) has merit as well.
 * His third point, that someone is massively replacing CoA's with newly created ones is less compelling as the argument then becomes "He whoever makes similar changes to many Wikipedia articles makes a new Wikipedia standard" which is of course circular as this ew standard can be replaced with another (or old) standard by the same procedure, which will only lead to edit warring. Therefore I oppose such "self created standards" for images, and I reject his consistency point.
 * Personally I think the new version with its overbright colours lack a bit of the style and class of the older version but that is my aesthetic view. Perhaps the new SVG can be patched up towards more royal colours instead of the current ones?
 * Altogether I have no strong opinion on this topic, and considering the second reason (weak SVG) I will not object going to the new version. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heraldically I see no improvement from the old to the new image. I do not know to what degree the official arms are defined in ways beyond blasonning (like Panton colour palette in a number of national flags). I see no stylistic advantage of one of the images compared to the other, both are clear and easy to interprete. The new image is almost five times as heavy as the older one which could lead to slower page load rates which I consider a disadvantage. Finally, which image is graphically more appealing is entirely subjective, it's a question of tastes and it might be difficult to find a common ground on that basis, such subjective questions should certainly not be an argument in favour of unilateral replacement of one image by another and even less an argument in favour of edit waring.--Caranorn (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The old SVG was of very bad quality, all details are smudged because it was poorly retraced. This smudging is especially visible in the mantling and the crown, and smaller details. It also seems to be tilted. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we move the various discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? I have started a new topic there to seek further opinions.--Caranorn (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which set of coat of arms should be used on this article
Because of the difference in opinion of which file set should be used, I am asking for a wider community consensus. Which file set should be used on this article, the work by Henk Bolens or the work by Sodacan?  Fry1989  eh? 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, they look very similar to me (the heraldic description does allow for such minor variations to my knowledge). So basically I don't care until a clear overview of arguments that disqualify one of the two versions is provided. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the arguments provided by the users from the Dutch Wiki do not have sources and are opinion based. They are basically saying "the claws stretch out too far", "the tincture isn't uniform". This is a cosmetic issue and dispute with them, and not a valid dispute with the correctness of the heraldic value. Both files follow the blazon, both are therefore correct, but because Dqfn13 is forcefully edit warring to control which file is used, there has to be a wider consensus.  Fry1989  eh?  19:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then per WP:BRD I would suggest to leave the version that was up before this started as the preferable option until a different consensus is reached. (PS reading up on edit summary: 'claws of the supporters are not supposed to be in front of the escutcheon' - besides this needing a reference to make for a strong argument, if I look at it carefully, these claws are in front of the shield in both versions, albeit a little more in Sodacan version but that is different shades of gray so no reason). Arnoutf (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring one source given by the other Dutch editor: Rietstap (important Dutch heraldic writer) writes: ...rekent men tot de schildouders ook de mens- en dierfiguren die het schild niet aanraken, docht er naast staat of liggen zonder iets te doen behalve dat zij soms een helm of kroon vasthouden.... "...counting to the shieldholders also the human- en animalfigures who are not touching the shield, but standing or lie next without doing something, besides holding a helmet or crown". Shows once more you either ignore us or you don't care about Dutch heraldic rules Fry1989. Dqfn13 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Arnoutf, that's the thing, they are the same even though they are visually different in artistic style. They both follow the blazon and are both correct. This is a cosmetic dispute. As for WP:BRD, that would naturally mean reverting to Sodacan's files before Dqfn13 changed the page to the files by Henk Bolens. I don't really care about following that temporary process however, what is more important is forming a group consensus on which to use that is permanent.


 * Dqfn13, making this about me and my previous comments about heraldic rules will not advance your preference. If you can not stick to the arguments of the files themselves, please do not comment at all and allow the RFC to proceed organically.  Fry1989  eh?  19:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Aha, the word "ook" (also) is central here which becomes clear if you replace the opening three dots ... with the omitted text: Hoewel zij het eignenlijk niet zijn, - Which makes the full translation "Although they formally are not, those human and animal figure who are not touching the shield..... are  also  counted as shieldholders" . The text should in my view thus be interpreted as: In Dutch heraldry figures holding the shield are called shieldholders (p233), but besides figures actually holding the shield, figures next to the shield doing somethings else are also called shieldholders". I do not see how this can interpreted as "Only figures standing next to a shield doing something else than holding the shield can be called shieldholders". Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Fry, I have been around long enough on Wikipedia to know that there is no such thing as a permanent solution for figure disputes, there will always be editors spending a lot of time creating minor variations on a known image and feel that their invested time makes the new version superior. I tend to favour towards conservatism until something better comes up (and it might) under the motto - let's not fix things that ain't broke ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean "permanent" as in this is it and whatever decision lasts for eternity. I know things change. I mean permanent as is once a consensus is reached that consensus will be effected and the opposing side of whatever consensus is made will observe what the community has decided. That's more important to me than a temporary revision which still leaves open the question this RFC is meant to close.  Fry1989  eh?  19:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully agree to that. Find consensus before making change. In this case I am not sure there will be consensus; if this is about cosmetic improvement that is the argument that should be raised (I would slightly prefer the somewhat less extreme colours of the Bolens version; but as personal taste may vary between people I would be hesitant to accept a consensus unless supported by many different editors), but if this is about being correct I would object replacement until convinced otherwise as I am not at all convinced there is a meaningful difference. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well? What are your plans? Ignore two Dutch experts (I've written over 400 articles about CoAs, Henk about the same and he created almost all of the files, that's I don't know how many 1000s) and keep pushing Sodacans files, or will you listen? I've also contacted the Hoge Raad van Adel (High Council of Nobility) who's the only organisation who's allowed to advise over Dutch CoAs given to municipalities, water boards and other governments. Maybe you should wait untill they've given their answer. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me be direct (being Dutch myself)


 * (1) Your interpretation of the text you provide seems flawed, it is your interpretation not the text (as I pointed out above)


 * (2) How many Wikipedia articles you have written does not matter and writing Wikipedia articles does not make you an expert. If you have written peer reviewed articles on Dutch heraldry in reliable sources (i.e. outside of Wikipedia) those WOULD matter and THAT would make you an expert. But YOU will have to bring these to the table as evidence; and you have not done that, so your claim to expertise is at this moment empty.


 * (3) Nobody claims that Henks CoA is wrong; so please do not speak for him in this discussion. YOU claim Sodacons version is wrong and base yourself on the (in my opinion) flawed interpretation of the source to make that point. Indeed a comment from the Hoge Raad van Adel would provide useful input (if the question was fairly phrased); but I would ask you to show enough sportsmanship to mention the outcome of that request even it does not support your point of view, as I am currently not convinced they will decide in your favour at all. Let's wait and see. Arnoutf (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will provide you with the awnser for one simple reason: I only care for improvement of the encyclopedia. I do not care for feelings of other people. Henk has reacted as well, as Henkandgigi, he has reacted here and on commons. I've asked for advise at the Hoge Raad van Adel and provided them with both files in the mail. I've told my vision and asked only to tell me if a supporter is allowed to have his/her hands, wings, feet, staf, club or anything in front of the escucheon and the elements. So I didn't ask to tell me if Sodacans arms are wrong. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter at this point whose image is "right" and whose is "wrong", even though neither is and this is merely the opinions of you and Henk Bolens. You by your actions have forced an RFC and the community will decide what they feel should be used.  Fry1989  eh?  17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So even if I provide you a source (the Hoge Raad van Adel) you will ignore that? Dqfn13 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, the Community will decide.  Fry1989  eh?  17:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As told I will be honest: the mail I recieved is useless. In an attachment I recieved the text of the royal decree and that does mention the supporters, but not if they are allowed to touch or overlap the figures on the shield (as shown in Sodocans version). In a second attachment the original drawing (also available on wiki) in which I can see the claws ON the shield, but NOT touching the lion or the blocks on the shield. Official variation can be seen in the Royal Mint. I will have a look for books next weekend, also hope you will wait for my next answer. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Support for Henk Bolens' work

 * Dqfn13 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC): it is the only one that is according to the rules, sourche for this claim has been given by Henk at my blok request.

Support for Sodacan's work

 *  Fry1989  eh?  17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * for now Support for maintaining version that was up before this started until compelling arguments (backed by RS where needed) are made to change. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support previous version (by Sodacan). Clearly a lot of work went into producing this image, which appears to be of excellent quality. It surely sets a bad precedent if someone's work of many hours can be junked and superseded without very good reason being provided. I am not convinced by any of the arguments above that the official and correct blazon has not been faithfully reproduced in Sodacan's work.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Well, all arms are created with hours of work, so that argument is weak. I've seen images made by Henk Boelens been marked as superseded within hours after being uploaded... even though nothing is wrong with them. It is hard to convince people who are not Dutch as they don't know the Dutch unwritten rules. Some rules are written and many are not. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not reply to or try to disenfranchise the !votes by other users. It doesn't look good.  Fry1989  eh?  16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fry, I'm allowed to react. If I want to react to a statement that's obvious untrue I will do so. Dqfn13 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling another user's !vote "weak" is not helpful, nor is attacking other users for not "knowing Dutch rules because they aren't Dutch". I don't believe Lobsterthermidor has said anything untrue, and every user has a right to state their opinion in this RfC if it so interests them.  Fry1989  eh?  20:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the vote is week, but the explanation. I'm also getting used to that here on en.wiki. I no longer care for what you do here, I'm out of here, you only care for pushing Sodacans work, you don't listen to reasoning, you've even said you don't care for Dutch heraldry rules. Be my guest, show the readers wrong information, show people Wikipedia isn't trustworthy. Block my account if you want, I no longer care, I'm out of here. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest the explanation from both sides seems equally strong so far; and that would favour to maintain the last version that was up before this discussion began (which happens to be Sodacans). No pushing there in my view


 * Per WP:V the only evidence we can take into account is verifiable evidence. Implicit rules of Dutch heraldry are (by being implicit) by definition not verifiable; and are for that reason not usable in the discussion. An e-mail from the hoge raad voor de adel (or similar institution) would give such claims some relevance (even if such an email is not a reliable, let alone secondary source), but as you admit yourself their feedback has not given a clear guideline for this discussion. Without reliable, verifiable sources we simply cannot decide what is right or wrong.


 * Your personal opinion just counts as little as the personal knowledge of other editors. However, everyone agrees both versions comply to the heraldic description (following generic rules). You claim that there are additional Dutch rules that prefer one version. That puts the burden of proof of any difference with you. Which bring us back to the necessity for you to provide a reliable source.


 * To be honest, this has been a fairly polite debate by most editors; if anything it has been you accusing other editors of not listening, while not listening yourself. That you did not get your way may be disappointing but that is just life. Sometimes your ideas are adopted with almost immediate consensus, sometimes opposed - and if they are sometimes you can convince people your view is better, sometimes you cannot. I am sorry that you feel disappointed in Wikipedia because you did not get your way in this; but as arguments and evidence go there is really very little in favour of changing the current status quo in favour of your suggestions. Arnoutf (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dqfn13, your entire attitude throughout this has been extremely poor. You repeatedly told me I don't know what I'm talking about and to leave this matter to those who do. You edit warred and tried to control content which forced me to do a RfC, and instead of polite discourse you started attacking and dissecting other users' !votes. You now throw your hands in the air because it's not going the way you would like, very very early in the RfC I might add, as only 2 other users besides ourselves have !voted. You now have put a notice on your user page saying "Wikipedia is being taken over by egocentrics." which I'm pretty sure is a reference to me. It's almost like you were trying to disrupt this RfC from the beginning.  Fry1989  eh?  16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. This whole debate is way too melodramatic and bordering on histrionic.  I may not be a wiki-expert, but I see nothing wrong with the original image, and no good reasons have been provided to replace it.  In that case, I suppose that I default to the status quo.  I suggest that the editor who opposes this either make a more compelling case for his changes or accept that Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, not fiat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the image by Sodacan.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason presented to replace the current image.  Floatsam  (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)