 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-11-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 19:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg)
The
royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of Greece from the restoration of
George II in 1936 to 1973, when the kingdom was replaced by the modern Greek state. The
escutcheon depicts the arms of the
House of Glücksburg, imposed on the
white cross on a blue field of Greece, with two depictions of
Hercules that act as heraldic supporters. Around the shield is the cross and ribbon of the
Order of the Redeemer. The motto at the bottom reads: "Ἰσχύς μου ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ λαοῦ" ("The people's love, my strength").Image:
Sodacan
In the description of the royal arms from 1936 to 1973, the word republic is placed within quotation marks. Why? Is it not really a republic? It seems to me that this is a personal POV. Caeruleancentaur ( talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: Merge with Coat of arms of Greece
These are two small articles. The mentioned article already covers all content in this article. Coat of arms of Germany and Coat of arms of Russia are for example excellent articles which cover all previous national arms, in spite of changes from monarchy to republic and vice versa. - SSJ t 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I never could fathom why we needed two articles on this. The Kingdom was not some other state, and its CoA is bound to be mentioned and depicted in the coat of arms of Greece article, so let's have everything there. Constantine ✍ 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Greece is different than the coat of arms of Hellenic Republic and, based on its history, merits its own article. The article explains the origins of, the meaning and the historical context of the former coat of arms. I do not think the either the size of the content in an article, or that fact that other nations' symbols (Germany and Russia, in your examples) have been treated a certain way on wikipedia should dictate how other national symbols are dealt with. For example, the articles dealing with the United States' symbols are so numerous as to be in their own template, and include such obscure items as the phrase Novus ordo seclorum. Argos' Dad 00:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Slight differences in the escutcheon is IMO no problem, since that could easily be properly described and dealt with in the same article.
Flag of Greece describes for example also the flag of the kingdom, even if that flag was a bit different. Wikipedia policies such as
WP:OTHERSTUFF exist of course, but the articles for the British, French, German, Russian, Swedish (etc.) coats of arms only go to show that historical versions may well be included in history sections. You clearly have no qualms about saying what this article should be like, based on the US articles. (Should that "dictate" what this article should be like? ;)) Though please notice that the US has no coat of arms, just a wide range of different symbols. We are dealing with two slightly different coats of arms for the very same state, one superseding the other. -
SSJ
t 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response The reason I gave the example of the United States was in response to your examples of Russia and Germany. So if
WP:OTHERSTUFF is a concern, perhaps the initial comparison to Germany and Russia was unhelpful. I am not sure why it is is necessary for every nation's symbols to be depicted like every other nation. In any event, the Coat of arms of Greece page exists (like Germany and Russia's coats of arms) but it does not provide the depth of information on the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Greece. That is why I support maintaining the current article.
Argos'
Dad 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Before you reverted the redirect, I inserted all of this article's content into
Coat of arms of Greece. And it's still quite a small article(!). One could ask: If we follow the logic of separating the heraldic history of Greece into forms of government, then why not one for the republican period as well? The fact of the matter is that these two existing articles are very small, and I don't see why the arms from Greece's period as a kingdom shouldn't simply be a section in
Coat of arms of Greece, alongside the republican period. In terms of size, naming (all these arms are for Greece) and chronology that makes sense. -
SSJ
t 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's now been a week without any counter-arguments. If no one intends to argue against a merge within a couple of days, I'll consider that as a consensus in favour of the merge. -
SSJ
t 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Object There is no consensus in this discussion; I have argued against your proposal and you have not convinced me using reasons based in policy that I should lift my objection.
Argos'
Dad 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There were two people in favour of the move and one editor who objected but didn't bother to come up with counter-arguments. I reckon it would be helpful if you tried to respond actively to the arguments in the discussion instead of just saying that you're not convinced? -
SSJ
t 23:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reply to Comment The burden is on you, the proposer to make arguments to support your proposal. Your argument at the outset is about the size of the article, the completeness of the proposed target article and the fact that other nations' coats of arms have been handled similarly. I will respond to your arguments in turn: 1. Size: Each article is of sufficient length to completely cover the topic. According to WP:Merging, merging is not appropriate where "[t]he topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short." There is nothing in WP:Size that supports your contention that this article is short (or too short to stand alone). 2. Completeness: The plain fact is, that as of the last time I reviewed the target article, it did not contain the breadth and depth of the explanation of the meaning and history of the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Greece and its royal family. 3. Germany and Russia did it, so Greece should do. This is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that has been discussed already and seems unpersuasive to both of us, so I assume you aren't pushing it any longer. So, now I have explained in detail why your arguments are unpersuasive to me and there is no consensus to merge the articles. Finally, I will also point out that consensus is not a vote, so two to one does not prevail here. Please see WP:CONSENSUS Argos' Dad 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There were two people in favour of the move and one editor who objected but didn't bother to come up with counter-arguments. I reckon it would be helpful if you tried to respond actively to the arguments in the discussion instead of just saying that you're not convinced? -
SSJ
t 23:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Object There is no consensus in this discussion; I have argued against your proposal and you have not convinced me using reasons based in policy that I should lift my objection.
Argos'
Dad 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's now been a week without any counter-arguments. If no one intends to argue against a merge within a couple of days, I'll consider that as a consensus in favour of the merge. -
SSJ
t 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Before you reverted the redirect, I inserted all of this article's content into
Coat of arms of Greece. And it's still quite a small article(!). One could ask: If we follow the logic of separating the heraldic history of Greece into forms of government, then why not one for the republican period as well? The fact of the matter is that these two existing articles are very small, and I don't see why the arms from Greece's period as a kingdom shouldn't simply be a section in
Coat of arms of Greece, alongside the republican period. In terms of size, naming (all these arms are for Greece) and chronology that makes sense. -
SSJ
t 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Response The reason I gave the example of the United States was in response to your examples of Russia and Germany. So if
WP:OTHERSTUFF is a concern, perhaps the initial comparison to Germany and Russia was unhelpful. I am not sure why it is is necessary for every nation's symbols to be depicted like every other nation. In any event, the Coat of arms of Greece page exists (like Germany and Russia's coats of arms) but it does not provide the depth of information on the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Greece. That is why I support maintaining the current article.
Argos'
Dad 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Slight differences in the escutcheon is IMO no problem, since that could easily be properly described and dealt with in the same article.
Flag of Greece describes for example also the flag of the kingdom, even if that flag was a bit different. Wikipedia policies such as
WP:OTHERSTUFF exist of course, but the articles for the British, French, German, Russian, Swedish (etc.) coats of arms only go to show that historical versions may well be included in history sections. You clearly have no qualms about saying what this article should be like, based on the US articles. (Should that "dictate" what this article should be like? ;)) Though please notice that the US has no coat of arms, just a wide range of different symbols. We are dealing with two slightly different coats of arms for the very same state, one superseding the other. -
SSJ
t 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as how this discussion has fizzled with no consensus reached, I will go ahead and remove the merge tag. Argos' Dad 02:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)