Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Emblem of the Papacy

Emblem of the Papacy

 * Reason:It has a good caption, it's pleasing to the eye, and it's of high quality.
 * Articles this image appears in:Papal regalia and insignia
 * Creator:F l a n k e r
 * Nominator: Bewareofdog


 * Support &mdash; Bewareofdog 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * support per nom. Debivort 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Basar 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I like the shadowing. ShadowHalo 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, great use of SVG. --Golbez 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support  E8   T10   A8   Looks better than the one on the Vatican webpage. Now the caption only needs wikilinks and we're done. (PS Any chance we get a version on the red shield too?) ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Suspending my support for the moment, there are a number of differences between the one on the Vatican website and this one, and I'd like to see non-Wiki sourcing that establishes the accuracy of this version. ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you mean this one might not be accurate.Bewareofdog 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I requested expert input from the Heraldry WikiProject. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and trialsanderrors  WiiWillieWiki (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support - great example of the proper use of SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- Amazing. Just so much detail. This is what I call proper use of vector graphics.  Eugene  2x  Sign here  ☺   01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per above Bernalj90 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose until I can figure out what exactly this is representing. It's brilliantly done... but all of the source images are for different emblems.  Nothing tells me that this SVG represents an emblem officially used by the Vatican.  If it is it will have a strong strong support. I should note that I don't think it's supposed to represent any of its three sources or the image trialanderror linked to... but, is this a specific pope's emblem?  We just need more info. gren グレン 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's this one, scroll down to "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City". There are some differences, but I can't tell if they're relevant in Heraldry. Artists have a certain amount of license when creating their versions of coats of arms. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is license in this regard... this is not just differences in proportions.... this is differences in colors, etc. and they really need to be explained. It looks nice and they did a great job on it but it needs to represent something in reality to be used in an encyclopedic article.... we can't just go around changing heraldry emblems. gren グレン 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, if only to piss off people who hate SVG logos. One question, should the hanging tassel in the center be in front of the one going side to side?  It is in the vatican's version.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The one without the red shield has one, the one on the red shield has two. ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Partial support. The papal emblem looks fine and is well done.  However, it does not belong on the page Coat of arms of the Holy See since it is not the coat (missing important elements required by heraldry conventions & Vatican law; see my note below).  Maybe use it on the Pope page? Perhaps also use it to explain the differences between the two? Pmadrid 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as it is now. Very well done.  Pmadrid 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do one like this.Bewareofdog 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, is this accurate? Moving to "suspended nominations" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to support, but I think it's not accurate and it can be done a bit better (maybe a matter of taste). --Arad 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In heraldry a large amount of flexibility is allowed for the artist's imagination - it's accurate if it corresponds to the blazon, which is "two keys in saltire or and argent, interlaced in the rings or, beneath a tiara argent, crowned or." How the lappets are curled, or whether the ropes pass in front or behind, doesn't matter. How specifically is this considered inaccurate? Gimmetrow 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The crown looks way different. It's like putting Pahlavi Crown on head of Elizabeth II. And I think the ropes can be done better. Otherwise a very good image. --Arad 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still recognizable as a "tiara argent, crowned or." If it's the jewels, they can be found on the personal arms of quite a few popes, and Image:John_XXIII_coa.png, Image:Paul VI coa.png, Image:JohnPaulICOA.jpg and Image:John paul 2 coa.svg show a wide variation. If you find the image artistically deficient, that's fine, but this image seems within the range of artistic license allowed in heraldry. Gimmetrow 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the answer I expected. I know there is limited freedom in rendering heraldic symbols, I just wasn't sure how much. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This image was removed from the article Coat of arms of the Holy See with the following edit summary: "the emblem was not a coat of arms and was incorrectly blazoned" (diff). --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "coat of arms" displays the symbol on a red shield ("gules" in the blazon). Gimmetrow 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I reinstated it then, since the press office website shows both versions. ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The papal emblem is indeed used on the Holy See's coat of arms, but with two important differences. (1) It is displayed on a red shield, as gimmetrow properly acknowledged.  (2) It's interlaced cord is changed to gold (interlaced in the rings or in blazon) in order to comply with heraldry rules.  If you note, the papal emblem (not the coat) is displayed on the Vatican flag with the red cord, so I really have no problem with the image as displayed here.  I just don't think it goes on Coat of arms of the Holy See since the blazon in the fundamental law requires a red field and a gold cord, and this image omits both. It could be used somewhere else, though, as it's a fine rendition of the papal insignia despite it failing as the coat of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City.  Pmadrid 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like the article should be expanded or merged than that the nomination withdrawn, especially since the website uses them in conjunction (similarly, the Coat of arms of Germany shows the Bundesadler both on golden shield and neutral background). I don't have access to the actual codex (which I just added as reference), so I don't know how reliable the Vatican website is in that regard. I'd say the best solution would be to also create a version on red shield, but sadly the creator hasn't respondend to a request to comment here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the Vatican site shows both the emblem and the coat together, this isn't necessarily something to follow. The Vatican site does not distinguish the Vatican arms from the arms of the Holy See, although other authors do. Also the Vatican site shows the "coat of arms" with a red cord on a red shield, and the ropes untied. The coat of arms is sufficiently confusing that the emblem just adds to the confusion, unless it were contrasted and explained very well. Gimmetrow 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Trialsanderrors, your solution (creating a version on a red shield) would work; however, the cord would need to be changed from red to gold. Otherwise, you'd not only have a coat of arms violating a fundamental heraldry rule (no color on color) but also not conforming to the blazon prescribed by law (interlaced in the rings or).  While heraldry gives artists considerable license in rendering the arms, it does not give them licence to ignore prescribed charges or tinctures.
 * Besides, this is a fine rendition of the papal insignia as it appears on the Vatican flag, and I don't think it should be defeated merely because it is not a proper rendition of the Holy See's coat of arms, which is not on the Vatican flag. I think a solution for the time being might be to place the picture on Papal regalia and insignia, remove the emblem from Coat of arms of the Holy See, and start working on an svg version of properly rendered arms.  This would also allow the nomination to continue. Pmadrid 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see a problem with this as the emblem. (Was it taken from a svg version of the flag to begin with?) Determining the accuracy of both Image:Coa Vatican.svg and Image:Holysee-arms.png is a separate issue. The Vatican site says in text that the rope can be red. Also the personal coats of arms of popes usually have the rope untied, so this may be significant on the corporate arms. Gimmetrow 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the author of the image (Trialsanderrors call me in my Italian thalk page). I've done it from this image and this one. If you need some corrections, please ask me and I manage to satisfy your requests. Cheers, F l a n k e r 09:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we figured it out, but if you're able to create an svg of the coat of arms that would be much appreciated. Thanks for stopping by. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (De-indent) If the Vatican was concerned about little things like this, they'd publish an official version (probably raster) that we could faithfully vectorize. If they don't publish an official copy of the emblem, who's to say this isn't accurate?--HereToHelp 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is of course an official text: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Supplement, 01.02.2001, Attachment B. I don't think the good people at the Vatican are quite as web-savvy as the average Wikipedian though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the onus is on us not to commit original research. My opinion in brief: I feel very wary about creating any emblem/logo that we don't have an example to copy from because, it may be in the guidelines, it may not be.  Maybe someone should e-mail the Vatican PR and say "is this a proper version of your emblem" --gren グレン 09:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not "a proper way" because is a very old emblem-coat of arms, so it is been represented on portals, documents, monuments, flags, and many more things, in many different shapings (like many others coats in Italy...). That's all. And it is not a big deal. --F l a n k e r 12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking into what the Acta says would not be original research. It would simply be going to the primary source (legislation) and checking as to how far it specifies the design, whether by color picture, blazon, or whatever.  If you object to going to primary sources and are insisting on reliance on secondary sources, then there is at least one herald, the late Archbishop Heim (the personal herald of Pope John XXIII), who distinguishes between the Papal emblem (tiara, crossed keys, red cord, not on a shield but could be on a lot of stuff like the flag of the Vatican City) and the Coat of Arms of the Holy See (red shield, tiara, crossed keys, gold cord).  See his book Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origins, Customs, and Laws.  So at least one heraldry scholar of repute denounces a red shield-red cord or a no shield-red cord version of the Holy See's coat of arms and supports the idea of a red-cord Papal emblem, and thus supports the proposition that this picture is an accurate depiction of the Papal tiara/crossed keys emblem.
 * Other secondary sources are extraordinarily ambiguous. The text of the blazon from the Holy See's own website supports a differentiation, since for the coat of arms it uses a blazon which specifically says interlaced in the rings or (put a gold cord between the rings) and has examples that are not the Holy See's coat of arms (such as the Vatican flag and John Paul II's personal arms) using a red cord version.  Despite this differentiation, right above the blazon it displays a red cord red shield version.  What is up with that???  Later on the same page says the cord can be red or blue.  Both of these contradict the explicit text of the blazon provided on the page.  So, either both the provided blazon and Archbishop Heim are wrong or the website is wrong.  This is why simply using secondary sources in this case is unacceptable.  There's too many ambiguities, and going to the Acta, the primary source on what is the coat of arms and what is the emblem, would be useful to resolve the discrepancy.
 * Let's not forget though, as Gimmetrow has accurately pointed out, that this page's debate should not be about whether this picture is an accurate depiction of the coat of arms of the holy see. It should instead be whether this depiction of the tiara and keys, a traditional emblem of the Papacy used in many contexts other than the principal charge on a corporate coat of arms (flags, behind Papal personal arms, etc), is proper.  I think it is. Pmadrid 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * F l a n k e r, I'm not saying that there is a proper way and I (have come to) realize that there are many ways to represent the old, non-standardized emblems. I believe we could use any version that has previously been used in history and it would be fine.  My worry is that--even if it may be a possible proper representation of the papacy--the first time this version has ever been used is on Wikipedia which makes me uncomfortable with its usage.  I am not disputing anything of what you have said about it being proper heraldry, I am just worried that without this version having been used before it (while accurate) is still creating new work.  That being said, if I am the only one still very wary about this do not let me keep this nomination held up. gren グレン 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see the problem, but I can't see the solution. If someone can find a good image (good for all of you), I can try to make a new emblem. --F l a n k e r 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mhm, this image is already present in Commons, so I don't need to make another. You can use it instead of the one mine. --F l a n k e r 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I've always liked seals and coats of arms. This is crisp and clean and I love that you did it in SVG. --  Valley 2  city  ₪‽ 06:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Looking at the official coat of arms, is the SVG not incorrect because the gold key points right instead of left, and vice versa for the silver key? Pstuart84 Talk 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The gold key must points to the right in the Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City, the same for the flag. In the Coat of Arms of the popes I've noticed the different disposition but I can't explain why (www.vatican.va). --F l a n k e r 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question: "The coat of arms of the Holy See. That of the State of Vatican City is the same except that the positions of the gold and silver keys are interchanged." - Pstuart84 Talk 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose the line thicknesses seem to vary, which looks a little off to me. —Pengo 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This one's still here? What are we waiting for? vlad§inger  tlk  16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Very easy to see and not complicated. --H|H irohisat Talk 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The accuracy issue is what is preventing this nomination from passing. IS there a solid conclusions yet?!?  Jumping  cheese  00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Several issues and no consensus. Please feel free to nominate this image again in future after considering the feedback. --—Pengo 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)