File talk:Blason ville si Ljubljana (Slovénie).svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This file was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2012 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Inexact reproduction of the coat-of-arms of Ljubljana
[edit]I've found a page describing the development of the Ljubljana's coat-of-arms [1]. It's in Slovene unfortunately (you may Google translate it), but contains pictures of all the previous versions of the currently used coat-of-arms. There is also a page describing the coat-of-arms in text.[2] There are some differences between this version and the official version:
- the castle wall should have 7 merlons
- the wall should have three sides visible
- the parapet of the wall should not be divided into three parts
- there should be a raised golden grate at the door
- the upper parts of windows should be rounded
- the tower should have 5 merlons and two sides visible
- the dragon should have two legs visible as well as his body drawn out
- the dragon's tongue should be red and shaped like a fish hook.
--Eleassar (t/p) 20:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is true. City municipality of Ljubljana official web site describes Ljubljana's emblems and symbols (in the right menu are links to Grb(=Coat of Arms) and Zastava (=Flag) of City municipality of Ljubljana). According to this site official coat of arms is this. Accurate SVG version of this image is already available at SL:WP. I think we should transfer SVG from SL:WP to Commons. M♦Zaplotnik
my contributions
10:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- This would be great, but the image has been uploaded under "fair use". --Eleassar (t/p) 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In any case, in traditional European heraldry it's the textual Blazon which is definitive, not the exact details of any one artistic rendering of the blazon... AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the things listed above are described in the blazon.[3] --09:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect versions
[edit]Please, delete the first three versions, because they are incorrect and as such redundant. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done - we normally only delete old versions that are copyright violations. See also COM:REVDEL. Rd232 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)