File talk:Royal Crown of Finland.svg

  There has been an edit war going on for a couple of months between some versions of the file. The original is a paler gold with a lion, the "other version" a darker gold with the lion from the Finnish coat of arms, and finally a third version with the pale gold but with the Finnish lion.

User Fenn-O-maniC, original uploader of the file, has been insisting that there is no need to upload a different version, and AFAIK their only defense for the paler gold colour is that it "looks nicer". On the other side, the dark gold version is supported by WPK and Fry1989.

In further detail, the new version suggest the following changes:

• reduced gradient on the crown
• brighter pearls
• unshaded roses
• slightly darker blue at the top of the lion's base
• coats of arms without black outlines
• thinner lines with the lion

In my personal opinion the new version is as a whole better (clearer, colour scheme fitting the simplified style better, reads better as "gold"), but could be still further improved. Here are my suggestions:

• keep the original shade of blue, however make the highlight and shadow have a bit more contrast to fit with the darker gold
• keep the shading of the roses, but make the paler grey brighter
• have the new coats of arms
• have the new lion (its lines are more subtle, fitting the subtle lines of the crown)
• have the new darker gold colours, but keep the original gradienting

--Pitke (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. unfortunately I cannot edit SVG files myself. I'll try to find someone to produce a file with "my changes" though. --Pitke (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I already changed the lion to modern one. And I still say that my version looks better. You can ask anyone about that. For example colours are smoother and all parts of the crown are shaded. I can't see any reason to keep the new version. It's really shame that this file is under edit war, but it definitely isn't my folt. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the smoothness and the shading, but how about the coats of arms? They look bulky and outdated with the black outlines. The biggest change however is the darkness of the gold, how would you feel about darkening it while keeping the smoother shading? --Pitke (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the little coats of arms are fine. I tried to follow the style of other heraldic crowns; and for example. Their coloring isn't dark so I think this ones shouldn't either. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Really, why this still keep happening? And you call me the one who is warring here? Look at the file history. I submited orginal file, then WPK made his "improvements", I reverted it and later changed the lion. Then Fry1989 reverts the "better" version. You can ask anybody which one looks better and I'm pretty damn sure which is their opinion! I've got enough for this now! Since it seems that you can't act like normal people, it's better that this file is deleted than under stupid edit war. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only a child would rather get their file deleted then to "allow" anybody to touch it. You are acting like one big child. Three people think WPK's changes are an improvement, and instead of just letting it slide, you try and get it deleted. Ridiculous. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Per Commons:Overwriting existing files, WPK's change is quite substantial and contested. Furthermore, Fenn-O-maniC's original version has smoother shading and fits better with the style he's aiming for. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the different parties can find themselves in this minor edit. It has thicker lines, except on the coats of arms, I've reduced those lines. The colours are a bit darker, but the pearls are lighter. I've also added some more variations in colour to make the gold stand out some more. There's also some technical changes, the shading didn't match with the outlining properly in either version, which is very noticeable in WPK's version. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I find this a very good compromise and superior to both of the previous versions. The change in the gold isn't as drastic but is still a step towards a more immediately recognisable shade of gold, and the smoother shading is retained, however overall the image is clearer and will work better in smaller sizes as well thanks to the added contrast in the lines. --Pitke (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems WPK isn't around anymore. So if Fry and Fenn-O-maniC don't object, I will provide you with the vector file. I honour the original license and release my minor changes under the public domain license. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Per Commons:Overwriting existing files, WPK's change is quite substantial and contested." Contested by WHO? The uploader who has a nasty ownership problem? No, there's three users who agree that WPK's changes were for the better, and the uploader instead of continuing on the discussion page, chose to try and exert even more ownership and get it deleted, which was swiftly denied. The only reason YOU came here is because you don't like me, and you made that clear by reverting and saying the changes were just "at the pleasure of Fry". you didn't read the talk page, you just thought I was pushing the changes cause I like them. You don't belong here if that's how you're gonna conduct yourself. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

They seem to be contested by the uploader and SanglierT. I have not reverted anything at all. You're confusing me with another user. Calm down, please. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I have. SanglierT however didn't dispute the file for any valid reasons, he disputed it because I was involved and he and I have a history of arguing. He made that clear with his edit summary "No valuable reason for the "new" colors, just the pleasure of Fry!". He didn't check the talk page, he just thought I was imposing my "likes". Fry1989 ^eh? 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone argues ? just make a lovely selection like a box of coloured pencils, the editors of the articles can work it out. Some like light, some like dark, why go for the spirit of compromise where everyone is unhappy, just have both instead ! Penyulap ☏ 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Third option

Lemmens, Tom (User Adelbrecht) has proposed a new version that mostly just alters the original slightly to make it have a bit more contrast. See it here on Fenn-O-maniC's talk page along with Fenno's approval. I third this proposal, and I hope Fry1989 can agree with us. --Pitke (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

While most of the proposed version is an improvement, it still needs the darker elements of WPK's version, which were more representative of the actual crown we have a photo of. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's mainly a matter of lighting. What I do notice is the very different "texture" (for lack of a better word) on the cap, which would give a darker effect when emulated in the vector file. I do fear I've stumbled on another problem now. The Wikipedia page mentions that the crown was made in the 1990s based on the original drawings, which might mean that the picture of a crown is a copyright violation. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An added texture to the cap might look like this. It looks darker without having changed the colours at all. But this would be a more radical change. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A nice touch, but yes, quite a major change. It should be uploaded as a separate version however, and I'd like to suggest a bit of more contrast for the shadows of the textured area. --Pitke (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It was only a quick mock-up, mainly for showing why the colours might seem too light. But it is mainly lighting, google the Reichskrone to see all the different shades of gold it has depending on the lighting. I hope some agreement can be found for the current file. I guess the compromise I have constructed can be darkened, but you would need to find an agreement with Fenn-O-maniC. I can't see Fenn-O-maniC accepting the darkest gold however, because he clearly aimed for a crown that would fit stylistically with the the heraldic crowns designed by Sodacan and Heralder, which he has also explained here. And the more I look at the crown, the more I want to make my own changes (all those textures, scales and waves), and that's not what anyone needs right now. :p Lemmens, Tom (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the debate is apparently resolved, I still wish to express my thoughts for the sake of posterity. I'd have liked to challenge anyone else's involvement in the design, admin or not, except the artist's themselves. The debate according to the changelogs started with WPK figuratively shoving aside Fenn-O-maniC's design with barely any reasoning, or the civility of asking to execute any changes, twice. The correct hues of the gold might well be stated with a Pantone colour somewhere and I can myself attest the original lion being of different design than the official one, but nowhere were the reasons stated clearly enough to validate them. The geometry and shading were also changed minutely and the coats of arms replaced with other versions, and not stated. If the design is wrong, the errors can as well be stated and discussed in Talks with the artist. A new derivative file might also be created. What was dealt with was a creation that probably demanded a lot of work, and despite the abscence of human faces in this interface, we're all still human, and actions towards us still wake feelings. A complete stranger simply expressing "You're wrong" and altering your work - toward which you might very well harbor a sentimental value - according to their whim isn't going to make a lot people happy about the effort of the stranger's contribution. As I can't find any statements about how the graphical representation of an actual metal item manufactured by the help of sketches should look like, I'm sure the decision goes to whomever makes the image. The disputes about what hue or shading looks nicer or clearer are only personal judgements in taste of visual art, and as with the profession in general, any judgements that carry weight are those with relevant expertise behind them. If any of the uploaders or arbiters possesses some kind of experience or expertise about the Finnish Royal Crown or its graphical representation or are even in any way involved with the crown and had expressed that, I'm sure that that opinion would have carried a lot more validity than a destructive exchange that tries to invalidate opinions by mockery. Kindliness begets kindliness. ~ Nelg (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It might well be that the people involved are from wikipedias other than the English one. For instance, I am native in fi.wiki but have worket at en.wiki as well. The editing atmospheres are entirely different -- en follows "editor leadership" in many cases, and there is a ton of discussing. This works for en.wiki very nicely, I've been around long enough to see why it must be that way. In fi.wiki OTOH, editors are encouraged to edit boldly and only start discussions when something's causing trouble -- there are few active editors, and those few are spread across different, often rather specific, interests that barely ever overlap. It's also in the Finnish culture overall to fix something that's broken instead of "bitching about it" (which is counterproductive when discussion indeed would be of best benefit, but it's a major strain and hard to learn out of). Some major contributors are in the habit of taking long leaves unannounced, others are suspected gone forever, some simply have a busy real life. As a fi.wiki native it would not cross my mind to ask a file uploader to tweak it, I'd do it myself and not bother the uploader, who probably has a lot of othert things to do <- typical fi.wiki thinking. Also, the ever-present ghost of cultural registers. Many Finns have great grammar and vocab for English but cannot seem to shed their thoroughly Finnish personal context in the language they use. (Suffice to say Finland has a vastly different register for what's neutral and what's rude from most of the Europe as well as USA.) So, eh, I suppose I wanted to say that there should be no suspections of bad will for "needlessly rough turns", especially here at Commons, since truer than any other Wiki project we have people from so many different cultures trying to work together. And perhaps even some a few dogs... --Pitke (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright clarification

So, it was suggested the photo, on which this SVG is based on, might be a copyright violation.

The item was crafted in 1980s or 1990s.

However the design is from 1918 and by Erik O. Ehrström (fi) who died in 1934 (from fi:Eric O. W. Ehrström), so the design has been PD starting from 2005. The crafter of the crown has no copyright on the item since it is not a product of their own creativity and artistic vision but of following the original design. --Pitke (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Replica made from original drawings would make the replica PD, and our SVG PD as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Refining edit request

Could we have a softer gradient effect on the bowl of the crown? The sharp step from the gold to the darker shades is pretty jarring, you can really get a good idea of it when looking at the thumbs below "previous versions". You'll see the earlier version uses four bands for the gradient, four or five should do here AFAICT. --Pitke (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this after noticing WPK was banned for sockpuppet abuse. I have been bold here, opting for a more metallic dark gold. Since I also did a lot of technical fixes, I want to ask that if a new debate about the colours happens, please apply the preferred colours to my latest revision, rather than reverting. Tom-L (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)