Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pope Benedict XVI COA
Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI
papal election of 2005. The coat of arms is notable for its inclusion of the silver mitre in place of the papal tiara, which had adorned the popes' coat of arms since the 14th century. Also the inclusion of the pallium differed from the long standing tradition against including external ornaments. However, as the Pope has the authority to alter rules of ecclesiastical heraldry
to permit these additional items, he has put the rules aside by granting authorization for his personal coat of arms.- Reason
- Excellent picture that appears to meet the criteria and is some of our best image work. Also, is a new innovation in heraldry due to miter and pallium inclusion.
- Articles this image appears in
- Spe Salvi
- Creator
- User:Piom
- Support as nominator MBisanz talk 08:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not very special or stunning looking. (Also old discussion: Feature one coat or flag, and you'll have to feature all...) --Janke | Talk 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Firstly I have a few issues with the shield's accuracy. What was it based off? Because the colours don't match A - they are closer to B but which is the correct version?
Then there's the crown - in this version it looks more like A but that's quite different from B. But if A had the correct form than what's with the bear's tail? In this version it doesn't match A or B AFAI can tell.Secondly why do the PL/EN copyright notice things render with the SVG? Lastly per Janke - there's nothing to seperate this particular SVG shield/flag from the rest. --Fir0002 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- This C is the official version. In hearldry, the individual items may be rendered slightly differently by each artist. I have no idea about the PL/EN issue. And the thing that makes this COA different than others is that it has a mitre replacing the tiara, which was used for 600 years, and it includes the pallium, which has never been used in hearldry before. MBisanz talk 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- So it's the same as B? I'm assuming that it's just a dodgy scan in B and C which give them the different hues to X? Because the colour is close but it's not the same - for example the "gold".
I'm no expert so I don't know whether the heraldry does have different rendering but I would strongly prefer if this version followed the official coat of arms far closer.Specifically on the person: (and I'll refer to this nom as "X" and the official version as B) I dislike the gaping mouth of X versus B's closed lips,the differences in the crown structure, the lack of detail in the hair of X,the sausage shaped collar of X versus the sharp lines of B,and the differences in the finishing of the shirt.Specifically on the bear: the awkward rendering of the bear's pack - it looks like a saddle in B and in X it doesn't look like much really, the legs look somewhat clumsily drawn (they lack claw detail visible in B)and the tucked in tail of X.Lastly the red section of the shield doesn't join properly with the black border (there's a white gap) - I'd fix it but I don't know how. I know this may seem like nit picking - but for a COA or map the detail and quality really has to set it apart from others. --Fir0002 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- There is no such thing as an official version of a coat of arms. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link --Fir0002 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as an official version of a coat of arms. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- So it's the same as B? I'm assuming that it's just a dodgy scan in B and C which give them the different hues to X? Because the colour is close but it's not the same - for example the "gold".
- This C is the official version. In hearldry, the individual items may be rendered slightly differently by each artist. I have no idea about the PL/EN issue. And the thing that makes this COA different than others is that it has a mitre replacing the tiara, which was used for 600 years, and it includes the pallium, which has never been used in hearldry before. MBisanz talk 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose If by some miracle a coat of arms is ever promoted to FP (extreme examples of quartering aside), this rendition will not be the first. A much better example was recently shot down for the second time. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I can't see how you can have a featured picture of something that is not well-defined, as evident from the link provided by I. Pankonin above. Essentially what that link is saying is that any representation of a CoA is as good as any other, other criteria (e.g. SVG format) being met. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would take a lot of visual appeal for a CoA to be featured. It has to be drawn amazingly, almost like the animals were real and were actually photographed holding up a shield or walking across it, but it still has to be SVG. It's almost a catch-22. I disagree with what you say here though. That a COA has to be technically correct according to the blazon doesn't mean that none of the other criteria apply. All that link is saying is that as long as you follow the rules, it's technically correct and acceptable from a heraldic point of view. One can still judge visual appeal in an FPC nomination. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, when I was talking about photographic quality, I meant for others to accept it as FP, not myself. IMO the UK coat of arms should be featured except for a minor technical detail. Others rejected it as too "cartoonish". -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)