Talk:Royal Standard of Norway

Royal standard 1815−1844

The existence of this flag has so far not been confirmed, but it is likely that the kings of Sweden and Norway flew a standard based on the union war flag with the royal arms. However, the proportions must be correct. In the war flag introduced by royal decree on 7 March 1815, the rectangles on the hoist side were squares, unlike those in Swedish flags after 1844. The "Norwegian" canton in the union flags of 1815 and 1818 was always a square.

This fact is confirmed in the recent book by one of the foremost Scandinavian vexillogists, Jan Henrik Munksgaard. See pages 67-83 and 119 in: Munksgaard, Jan Henrik (2012): Flagget − Et nasjonalt symbol blir til. Kristiansand, Vest-Agder-museet. ISBN 978-82-91178-26-4.

I would greatly appreciate the help of anyone who is able to make SVG versions of this flag with correct proportions. Lacking the necessary skills, I made a makeshift PNG-version to replace the incorrect flag that was used in several articles. Roede (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When there is a problem with an SVG file on Commons, you should go there and ask for it to be corrected, and wait for that process to be done. You shouldn't upload "makeshift PNGs" and edit war to force them on articles as a replacement until the SVG is changed, that's highly disruptive and needs to stop. Have some patience. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a lot more disruptive to create unhistorical flag images. Help to improve Wikipedia by making correct SVG files. Roede (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not that's absolute nonsense. If there is a problem with a file on Commons, fix the file. It may take an hour, it make take a few days, but nobody's gonna die waiting for the correction. Uploading a temporary substitution in an inferior format is absolutely unnecessary and disruptive. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin comment: Rather than locking the article (or blocking both of you) which is standard practice for a content dispute, I recommend that you both assume good faith that your actions have been in good faith, and agree to wait for the fixed SVG regardless of what image is currently being shown.

The SVG version has been here for a while, no harm in waiting a bit longer for a fixed version. The bitmap replacement, while being an inferior format, does no harm and doesn't detract from the value of the article.

Regardless of which image is there right now, either way, you have to wait for the fixed SVG to be available, and use it then. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Current royal standard

I don't quite understand why we cannot use the actual Norwegian royal standard by Peterssen here instead of the somewhat different lion flag based on the quite old Danish encyclopedia Salomonsen. May be I just don't have the necessary technical knowledge to understand this, but I can see the real and actual standard as an illustration at the Norwegian wikipedia - evidently without any big problems ...Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen photos of the Norwegian Royal Standard, there is nothing fake about the current lion on our SVGs. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Fry1989 ^eh? 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming a little strange: why deny that the artist's style of the lion illustration is not the style of the lion in the actual royal standard? Salomonsen's lion style is quite different from Peterssen's style and the royal family has used Peterssen's style since 1906. The heraldic principle is that you may draw the charges in a coat of arms in many different ways. When the owners of a heraldic banner, however, always use a special style and a special drawing, that is an argument for reproducing the banner in that way here at wikipedia. What are the reasons not to do that? I don't see why Fry1989 has changed the wording of the illustrations that I have written in the article and why Fry1989 will not allow the illustrations of the actual banners instead of the Salomonsen lion banners. It would be interesting to see other arguments than those that we have seen till now. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The captions that you are adding directly contradicts the main text of the article which explicitly states that the King and the Royal Standard use the 1905 lion, not the lion designed and adopted in the 20s. You also have not provided any sources. Your content has been removed for those two reasons, and adding it back without a source is vandalism. Add it again and I will report you for such. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am so sorry that I don't understand the actions here by Fry1989. The style of the lion in the illustration is from Salomonsen and it is not the Peterssen lion style that the royal family has been using since 1905. I have written about the lion style in my article "Norge i 1905: Gammelt riksvåpen og nytt kongevåpen", Heraldisk Tidsskrift, bind 10 nr 94, Copenhagen October 2006. You may also see the actual Norwegian royal standard at the Norwegian wikipedia article here: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_norske_kongeflagget. I don't understand why Fry1989 still insists to use the Salomonsen lion style instead of the Peterssen style. But the world is full of mysteries ... Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying so hard to explain this to you and you just won't get it. There is no "one lion" that is right. The lion on Roede's file does not look like his source, nor does it look like the real thing. It lacks major detail, the posture of the lion is different, the red is different, A LOT of things are off with his image. That is why his file can not be used here; as far as the rules of Wikipedia are concerned his file is unsourced. Now if you can not understand that, it is no longer my problem. I have made it as clear as possible. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the pictures of the palace flag and the coronation banner, and I have looked at the illustration in the wikipedia article here. For me it seems that the article here has another lion style, much more similar to old Salomonsen than to Peterssen. Look at them again and you will see several differences as i.a. lots of small, three dimentional lines and details on the body, as well as some mouth and tail details. May be it is still your problem as well as mine? Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fry is still insisting that Salomonsen's lion is a better illustration than Peterssen's lion - without mentioning that the Fry illustration is not having the style of Peterssen. The well known Norwegian museum's director Lars Roede and I myself have both tried to explain this to Fry, but without success. I recommend the illustration here to be changed as it seems that Fry still has no valid reason to protest.Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, STOP SAYING IT IS "FRY'S ILLUSTRATION". I DIDN'T MAKE IT, SSOLBERGJ CREATED THE LION. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD THIS ONCE BEFORE!

As for your arguments, I'm not insisting that "Salomonsen's lion is better than Peterssen's lion" all, I haven't mentioned either anywhere on here, you are the one who keeps mentioning those names, trying to make it look like it's a battle between the two. Roede's lion, whether you want to call it a "Salomonsen" or "Peterssen" or whatever other name you like, does not look like the lion in actual pictures of the flag. It does not look like the lion in the Royal website's illustration of the coat of arms. It doesn't look like any visual source that has been provided. It is therefore unsourced. Unsourced content can not be used. The lion in our SVG may not look exactly like the real thing, but it's certainly much closer to the reality. I have every right to protest the use of something that is unsourced and looks like nothing we've seen. This isn't a democracy, you don't get a vote, Wikipedia works on sources. Until there is a proper source, it can not be used here. It is that simple. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to see what Fry sees - even though I have been quite interested in the Norwegian governmental and royal arms for so many years. The SSOLBERGJ drawing that Fry prefers, is more different from the lion style in the arms used by the royal family, than the Roede drawing, in my opinion - even after having looked at the drawings several times now.I find the SSOLBERGJ and Fry drawing quite like Salomonsen's style and the Roede drawing quite like the Peterssen's style. But may be I cannot see and think clearly enough in these very difficult matters ...Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First I just need to say something very important because both of you have attempted to add inappropriate language to this article. We do not, under any circumstances, add a description to an image which directly contradicts it or brings doubt upon the image. If we have the Norwegian flag on the page for example, we would not add a description saying "The Norwegian flag, but this illustration is wrong because the real thing uses a different shade of blue....", which is essentially what you two have done. It's not appropriate at all to describe an illustration on an article by saying that it's wrong. Whatever lion is used here, you shouldn't do that anywhere on Wikipedia for any illustration.

Secondly, this is not a battle between the "Salomonsen lion" or the "Peterssen lion", it's simply an argument about accuracy. The SVG's lion looks much more like the real flag and the coat of arms used on the Royal Website, than Roede's lion does. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have comments and a link on the talk page for Fry1989. Link to the original Norwegian coronation banner with the royal arms painted in Peterssen's style:http://www.kongehuset.no/artikkel.html?tid=74742&sek=26980 . Kind regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For us Norwegians who are working with heraldry and flags it is difficult to understand why we have not convinced Fry to not use the more naturalistic lion style in the articles with the Norwegian lion. The lion with all this hair etc. is not used by Norwegian authorities and not by the Royal family or at the Royal Palace banner. So why use it on Wikipedia where people look for correct information? Hans Cappelen (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Higher Authorities of Wikimedia Commons have now restored the deleted files with Eilif Peterssens original design. They are back on Wikpedia! Greetings from Lars Roede (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can not and will not allow Roede to soapbox Wikipedia with his own inferior personal drawings because of dissatisfaction with the SVG. I never said it was perfect, but it's a million times better and closer then Roede's additions. I'm requesting a qualified user to alter the SVG lion to be more perfect, but until that is done this page will continue to use the superiorly formatted SVG. Roede, this is the second time you have done makeshift PNGs of an image because you didn't like something about the SVG. It wasn't proper to do it then, it's not proper to do it now. If you do not like something about an SVG file and you are incapable of properly editing in SVG, you should request others' help and not edit war to put your own drawings everywhere in it's place. Await corrections in the SVG. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I find the strange actions and wording here from Fry very difficult to understand. Fry seems to have very strong feelings here as he insists to use a drawing which is different from the actual standard. With the Salomonsen-inspired drawing instead of the Peterssen-design this article is giving wrong information to the users of Wikipedia about the standard and what it really looks like. Hans Cappelen (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing difficult to understand about what I'm saying. You don't replace SVGs with inferiorly-formatted files and this is the second time Roede has done that. If you have a problem with an SVG file you change the SVG, and if you're incapable then you ask someone else to change it for you. And again trying to make this a battle between two artists' lions when that isn't what this is, is really unhelpful. This is a matter of truth and reality, not a battle of "Salomonsen VS. Paterssen". Fry1989 ^eh? 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why Fry is doing this again and again to the illustrations and why he will not use the most correct illustration. It seems that his problem is not what the illustration illustrates but the picture/illustration format! Could this be in the true spirit of Wikipedia? Shall the information value resign for the format? We Norwegians writing about flags and heraldry on Wikipedia feel that we don't shall use an illustration with wrong information - even when the format is SVG and the other illustration is not. I hope this point of view is not that difficult to understand. Hans Cappelen (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We are now able to oblige user Fry with SVG images depicting the official versions of the royal standards of Norway. Thanks to user Hosmich for his assistance.Roede (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll replace the erroneous flag with the correct one in SVG, and I hereby end this discussion. Haakon K (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Standard of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101190908/http://www.skikkogbruk.no/images/large/Flagg.jpg to http://www.skikkogbruk.no/images/large/Flagg.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)