Talk:National seal of the Comoros

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to National seal of the Comoros, which seems to be the closest to a name that people agree upon. I've also created redirects from every reasonable alternative I could think of. If there are any I missed, someone please create them, too. GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Coat of arms of the Comoros → Emblem of the Comoros — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Someone made this move undiscussed by cut-and-paste; I histmerged back; let's discuss it; ref Talk:Coat of arms of Eritrea#Requested move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Move. The device the Comoros uses is not a coat of arms, so the article should be moved to Emblem of the Comoros to follow correct terminology. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK

• Oppose We use Coat of arms of... for all the other arms/emblems derived from Arab heraldry, so why not Comoros as well? Technically, the emblems of Comoros are the national flag and the coat of arms. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The devices are sometimes correctly labeled, other times incorrectly. You can find emblem, national emblem and coat of arms all in use. Some articles are titled coat of arms but the article only refers to the device as an emblem. So no precedence to fall back on, no "all". All coats of arms are emblems, not all emblems are coat of arms; so emblem would be the generic term to use, the safe term when in doubt. And technically the national flag and national emblem are insignia of the Comoros. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have a better title? According to the constitution, "the national emblem is the green flag struck in the centre with a crescent and four stars". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My bad - that's the old constitution, the current reads "L'emblème nationale est rouge, jaune, bleu, blanc, 4 étoiles, un croissant vert" - which, like the previous, describes the flag, not this. Therefore, referring to this as the National Emblem is incorrect, and I have changed the article to that effect. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I would not rely upon politicians for definitions. Politicians make errors, especially on subjects they are not experts at, like heraldry and vexollogy. Simply because they call something an emblem does not mean it is an emblem, same for a coat fo arms or anything else. Sure, within a legal context, the flag may be referred to as the "national emblem", but it is a flag plain and simple. In Illinois where I live, a 17 year old is called an adult. However, in California where I lived previously, a 17 year old is called a minor. If constitutions and politicians were perfect, there would not a discrepancy about the definition of a minor or adult. Oh, and the United States has an adult set at age 16 on national land, parks and such, another large discrepancy considering both Illinois and California are part of the US. We are not talking about legal context here, though. This is still an emblem, whether or not the flag is called the “emblem” in the constitution. Since the "emblem" is not described as being upon fabric, technically according to the constitution of the Comoros there is no flag then, just some abstract “emblem” without a defined shape that is made up of different colours and a crescent. There is no requirement of an emblem of being displayed upon a rectangular piece of fabric, after all. Clearly, the constitution does not adequately describe things; it was an attempt to be overly-formal in its speech by politicians. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • First off, constitutions tend to be drafted by legislative drafters rather than politicians. The constitution describes the "National Emblem", and this isn't it. The flag is the emblem cast onto fabric. The first decent source I found described this symbol as "Sceau national (armoiries)" - translation national seal (arms). Find a reliable source that describes this as the "Emblem of the Comoros" first. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You seem to wish to argue for sake of arguing, about who actually writes a constitution and whether emblems are actually officially called emblems. Emblem is the generic term, I do not need to cite something that is blatantly obvious by its definition. You are taking the reference policy to a point of ridiculousness, asking citations for general and well-understood terms. But since you went this route, follow through with it. The Constitution refers to it as the “national seal (arms)”, but not a “coat of arms”. So, rename it National seal of the Comoros, in accordance to your impeccable reference. It will be difficult to find a more reliable source than the Constitution, after all. Oh, and you can not say that by ‘arms’ they meant ‘coat of arms‘, because you assert this can not be an emblem as it is not specifically referred to as such by in the Constitution. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I am not taking the reference policy to the ridiculous. You want to retitle this page as "Emblem of the Comoros". I am asking you to prove that it is referred to as such. This isn't an expression of support for the current title, I'm merely putting you to the proof that is expected of anyone else proposing a move. The primary motivation here is WP:COMMONNAME - you're suggesting to us that "Emblem of the Comoros" is the correct title for this page, but without providing any evidence that this device is referred to as the "Emblem of the Comoros" or that "Emblem of the Comoros" refers to this. You've provided neither, and I've provided evidence to the contrary on the latter of the two. Precisely what part of this are you having trouble with? 81.110.105.179 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
          • "Emblem of the Comoros" receives more Google hits, 141,000 versus 60,700 for "Coat of arms of the Comoros". Of that, most of the "Coat of arms of the Comoros" are from Wikipedia links or articles using Wikipedia as a source. How is that? How about the definition of "coat of arms" and "emblem" thrown in there? A coat of arms needs a shield by definition. Emblem is any pictorial device used to represent an entity. Therefore, coats of arms are emblems, and by calling this a coat of arms, de facto it is an emblem. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you could try searching for "English comprehension" as well? I notice your response is distinctly lacking in "evidence that this device is referred to as the "Emblem of the Comoros" or that "Emblem of the Comoros" refers to this". 141,000 Google hits for "Emblem of the Comoros" tells us nothing more than that Google thinks it found 141,000 references to those words in its index. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you should take your own advice, since you have trouble understanding what the word 'emblem' means. Any other insults that you wish to throw in that might help distract from the issue at hand? No, I have no official source citing this as the emblem. Nor is there an official source citing this as the coat of arms. The constitution calls it a seal. So you are arguing that it be called a coat of arms based on what yourself? That it is already titled that? The page is unsourced. Everything that calls this a coat of arms uses Wikipedia as a reference, either copying the whole article or the image file. There is nothing that can be found that calls this anything but a seal. So how do you figure that coat o farms is more accurate than emblem? Now, again, look at Coat of arms and see how it needs a shield. See? Alright, now that that shows you what a coat of arms is, look at the emblem of the Comoros. See? No shield, so not a coat of arms. You understand English yourself, do you not? What else do I need to point out on this article being named wrong? There is nothing calling this anything but a seal. So, choose 'seal' or 'emblem', but coat of arms is not an option. And using an argument that an unsourced page consisting of a single paragraph has existed unchanged for this long means it should still be left unchanged is not much of an argument at all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
            • "Yet again, you are coming across as an idiot. Get it into that thick skull of yours that it is not enough that the article is, in your opinion, "named wrong". The constitution doesn't refer to this device as a seal. In fact, it doesn't appear to make any reference to it at all. Why are you having difficulty grasping the idea that I am not endorsing the current title? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop with the insults. You are not being reasonable or trying to further anything, you are making this personal. There is no source calling it a coat of arms, that was what the article's creator labeled it. I do not need a source specifically referring to this thing as an emblem when I have other sources that define what a coat of arms is and what an emblem is, with this device clearly following the description of what an emblem is. This is not a matter of what a constitution says, that is a legal document and we are not discussing a legal issue in the courts of the Comoros. Therefore, common definitions apply, regardless of the constitution's language and terms. Oh, and if the constitution didn't make reference to this device, then why did you say it did earlier in the discussion? Just read through, you will see you provided a quote from what you said was the constitution referring to the device as a seal. Did you make that up? Now before you try to insult me and blame me for this mistake, whether the before mentioned constitution quote was a mistake or your new assertion you did not provide the quote even though it may be clearly seen, just stop and take a breather. You are trying to argue over what is "more common" and what is "legal", at the cost of what is accurate. I can find enough people that believe that President Obama is a socialist, and enough that claim he is a communist, to say it is "common". However, this does not make it a common fact, but a common mistake. Calling this a coat of arms is a common mistake. It is an emblem, by definition. There are no articles about this device, and I really have no idea where the information or picture came from. Being there are no articles I could readily find, there is nothing to cite it as being either a coat of arms or emblem. And, since emblem is the correct term anyways, that is the default term that should be used. For sake of correctness. The constitution calls the flag the National Emblem, but we do not name the article on the flag National Emblem of the Comoros because it is a flag. This is not a coat of arms, it is not called a coat of arms by the Comoros, so why is it named a coat of arms? I am not saying change this to “National Emblem“, but to emblem, which it is. That is not opinion, that is fact. An emblem is "an object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.", and this s a representation symbolizing a state. It is the definition of the word, and can not be an opinion. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Your continued ignorance of our naming rules astounds me. What you are doing is basically saying "I have sources that say what a socialist is, and sources that show Obama meets that definition, so I'm going to call him a socialist". There is a pattern (albeit incorrect in many cases) of referring to these devices on Wikipedia as "coats of arms" when there isn't a proper name - you have previously pointed out exceptions as if this would somehow invalidate the pattern, when in fact all of those exceptions are at the usual names of those devices. This needs to be looked at because labelling them all as "coats of arms" is arbitrary. However, your choice of randomly moving these articles to "Emblem of X" is also arbitrary, and therefore no better. You have ploughed virtual reams into pointing out that this isn't a coat of arms, yet precisely nothing into why we should specifically call it an emblem, rather than a seal, insignia, logo, or something else. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (finally), because it appears that (National) Emblem of the Comoros does not refer to this device but something else. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to either Seal of the Comoros or National Seal of the Comoros. It appears that in French this is referred to as Sceau National des Comores. There are more references to Armoires des Comores, but these appear to be mirrors of fr: or otherwise derived from it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Move. I would support a move from the current title as the device is not a coat of arms. I would prefer a move to National seal of the Comoros. I trust the information given by the debating parties above and given that the constitution calls it a National seal and it is in fact designed as a seal (as with the seals of US states) that term is probably more corect. Inge (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The constitution does not appear to make any mention of it, other than to say that there shall be a seal defined by law. The source I refer to earlier is this, where I also first spotted the constitution. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Question - I am ready to move this article to either National seal of the Comoros or National Seal of the Comoros, per the above discussion. Which capitalization would be preferred? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I think simply Seal of the Comoros would suffice. Adding "national" would only make it harder for people to find the article, who may not be aware of what the constitution specifically refers to the device as. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not really relevant, if outside sources refer to it as the "National Seal". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The article won't be harder to find if we use a redirect. Could someone reply to the capitalization question, as posed, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
        • The link privded to he constitution refers to the seal with only one sentence, "[l]a loi de l’Union détermine le sceau de l’Union." It translates as, "the law of the Union shall determines the seal of the Union." The term "national seal" comes from one third pary website, and does not hold any weight then being the sole example known to use this term. If we are changing this to be named a seal instead of emblem based on the constitution, we should use what is in the constitution then. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
          • In case you missed it the previous twice I brought it up, the Constitution merely states that there shall be a seal, it neither names it nor describes its form. For what little they're worth, I get precisely six hits on Google for "Sceau National des Comores", and two (both on the same site) for "Sceau des Comores". There are also twelve for "Armoiries des Comores", but most of those are sourced from Wikipedia. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
            • So, you're refusing to answer the question I asked? Interesting, and annoying. I'll just take the lower-case 's' option, because "National seal" is not an official name of the thing, but simply what it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is not the current emblem of the "Union of Comoros". This is the correct one: http://www.gouvernement.km/assets/img/logo-gouvernement-01.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.50.219.249 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)