Thread:Mechemik/@comment-1082330-20190115171033/@comment-1082330-20190115223108

Hm, I see. The logic behind that policy makes sense, I suppose, though I do find its ramifications to be unfortunate. The great benefit of heraldry as representative icon is the artistic license inherent to it, since a given blazon isn't meant to have a single, definitive visual representation, but simply provide a description for representing arms dependent upon the means available to the artist and the context of their use. In other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia or WappenWiki, this allows historical (real life) arms to be drawn to a given standard or in a common style, and thus share an æsthetic with each other that using scans or photos of original preserved copies wouldn't allow. This helps lend those projects' heraldic representations a visual consistency when used in concert with one another, such as on Wikipedia's armorial of sovereign states. I'm sure you can appreciate how mixing-and-matching the concept art for the Skellige clans and the vectors for the Continental houses within the same composition would look a bit incongruous (and, of course, the vector files have their own benefits for digital display over the concept art, especially at small resolutions, being losslessly scalable).

Anyway, it was as such that I had held out hope I might get the vectors restored for use on the pedigree, if not elsewhere, just for the sake of visual consistency. If you're set on a policy against them, however, I shan't press the issue. Thanks again for the explanation.