File talk:Arms of Segni popes.png

Dbachmann put the following on the file page:

‎Description = Coat of arms of the Conti di Segni family (also used by three popes of that family, see papal coats of arms). Note that the eagle should be crowned (this is apparently a mistake in the image, originally due to this website)

The file image corresponds to what appears in old editions of the Annuario Pontificio, a reliable source by Wikipedia definition. The image in the Annuario Pontificio from long before the Internet was invented is certainly not derived from the website mentioned. Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, Esoglou, but this is becoming annoying now. Yes, your source is ok. It is not a heraldic source, but we can use it as a primary source published by the Vatican in 1969. However, this image is not derived from that source, at least not directly. What this image shows is the coat of arms of the Conti family. It is shown in your 1969 source because it is the arms of the Conti family.

If you can help figuring out why the eagle has lost its crown and when this happened, do go ahead, but you will not be able to derive this information from your single primary source.

The actual history of this image, which you have just copied from commons, is that it is derived from this jpg. I don't know where this jpg came from, because no source is given, perhaps it is in some way based on your 1969 book, idk.

But it is also different from what is shown there. The eagle in the jpg has a golden head, our eagle here just has a golden beak. Our eagle was drawn by User:Odejea in 2008, and he did not base it on the source you cite. He did not cite where his eagle came from, but he presumably just copied it from another coa on commons. It is misleading for you to suggest that the image is derived from the Annuario Pontificio. It is a 2008 interpretation of the Conti coa, which happens to coincide with the Annuario Pontificio which also shows an interpretation of the Conti coa.

The eagle figure in fact does have an author, even if you or Odejea did not think it necessary to attribute it. I think the author may be User:Caranorn, who used it in File:Armoiries de Waha 2.svg. Your Annuario Pontificio has nothing to do with the specific way this coa is drawn. Your source just happens to corrobate that this is more or less the Conti coa. There is no reason to cite Annuario Pontificio above any other reference as a source for this image because the image was not made based on the Annuario Pontificio.

I hope I am being sufficiently clear. It feels obsessive-compulsive to go to such lengths to explain such a simple thing, but it appears from your revert-happy behaviour that it needed to be pointed out. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source for the eagle is File:Meuble héraldique aigle éployé.svg, dating to 2006, drawn for the French Wikiproject Blasons, originally uploaded in 2004 as fr:Fichier:Heraldique aigle éployé.png by fr:Utilisateur:Rinaldum. Let me explain that "GFDL" means you can use the image with attribution. The guy who drew this eagle is an artist, and he should be credited. You did not take your eagle from some out-of-copyright work, some Wikipedian sat down and drew it for you in 2004. You can (a) draw your own eagle, or (b) use some out-of-copyright eagle, or (c) use a copyrighted eagle published under the GFDL and then cite your sources. None of these options involves the Annuario Pontificio in any way. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting your summary on the file page, which I find quite good. The file image let the reader know what are the arms of Innocent III, Gregory IX and Alexander IV given in the 1960s editions of the Annuario Pontificio. The actual image itself did not claim to be and clearly was not a reproduction of the image in those editions of the Annuario Pontificio. The actual drawing was based on the work of Odejea, who released his work under GNU rules and who in the file was explicitly credited for his work. Whether he invented it out of his own head, or based it directly on the Annuario Pontificio image, or based it an image in another source that agreed with the Annuario Pontificio image (and may even have in turn been based on it) was of no importance: the important thing was that it corresponded to what was given in the Annuario Pontificio - as Wikipedia stated. Of course, if other reliable sources give contradictory information, that information may be given in Wikipedia too, either as mere information or in the form of an image that is not simply reproduced from a copyright Internet image but that, for reasons such as GNU, is free to be republished.

I have used the past tense in the above, because, as you will have noticed, I have proposed the deletion of the file in view of your kindness in producing an svg version of it and uploading that to Commons. Would you be so kind to do the same also for the other images that I uploaded and utilized on the "papal coats of arms" page? Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]