Template talk:Coat of arms/Archive 1

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Copied from Template talk:Country data Malta, where it was erroneously requested: --Paul_012 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

please note that many coat of arms in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union, including that of Malta, are mistaken.

for Malta it should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Malta.svg and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_of_Malta.svg which i wonder if this really exists.(ref http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/state/symbols.asp)

195.158.108.102 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the template documentation,

Only escutcheons (i.e. each respective coat of arms's focal "shield", which in in other variants might be part of a comprehensive achievement) are included. This ensures that the arms remain informative even when rendered at low resolutions, as well as a meaningful degree of uniformity. This practice is in conformity with the rules of heraldry.

--Paul_012 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Argentine Coat of Arms

Argentine Presidential Decree 10302 states that the only valid Coat of Arms is the one with the laurel crown and sun, i.e. the only one which is a "faithful reproduction" of the 1813 Assembly COA. The ambiguous escutcheon-only image is not a "faithful reproduction" of that COA, symbolically disregards the outcome of the Civil War and ignores sovereign regulations; hence it cannot be associated with Argentine State matters as it's an illegal misrepresentation of a Symbol of State and unusable under Argentine Law. Its inclusion in most articles would invariably lead to it being replaced by the correct one, so it will be doing more harm than good.

The addition of the legal COA was a good faith edit done by me, because despite including the crown and sun and thus breaking uniformity, its design is simple enough to be distinguishable even at low resolutions. But since uniformity seems to be favored above legality and correctness, I decided to remove the template. Windroff (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms without crown

Hi,

I know that because of some heraldical practice you think that it is enough to display the shield when displaying the coat of arms, but by the law and traditions it is mostly totally wrong. For example if you use instead of on a page for heraldy it can be okay. But if you use it on a page of the country or on a page where you list the coat of arms of the countries (like Portal:European Union) it also has a political meaning and it is wrong. There has been long discussions in every country about national symbols and the wikipedia should follow the decisions. We don't have right to "fake" a country's coat of arms with removing the crown from it. So please change the template to use the official form of the coats of arms or forbid the use on pages like Portal:European Union and only enable it for heraldical topics. Regards, Tamaas 89.133.131.15 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

True, I corrected it. There is a single version of the Hungarian coat of arms. Not multiple ones (small, middle, fancy) with different amount of decoration. There is only the version with the crown. Qorilla (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this template is heraldry, and in conventional heraldry it makes no sense to consider a coat of arms invalid just because only the escutcheon is displayed. This notion is perhaps partly influenced by the supposed inviolability of copyrighted logos. I'm reverting back to escutcheon-only for Hungary. I understand that a crownless coat of arms could be considered a political statement in Hungary, but the premise of this template is to only include the escutcheon. The alternative is strictly speaking to use the variant that is most used for each country etc. Please use [[File:Coat of Arms of Hungary.svg|20px]] for Hungary, instead of this template, in articles where it could be considered particularly important to include the crown due to political sensitivities, instead of undermining the legitimate premise of this template. Thanks. - SSJ ^t 22:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Croatia

Similar to Argentine and Hungarian situation, Croatian coat of arms is also meaningless without a crown (it's an integral part of it).

So please use instead of  Croatia (until someone hopefully fixes the template). Merkhet (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Period or year parameter

Hi all. This template is cool but to make it more flexible, I think it should have a "period" or "year" parameter, similar to that of the {{flag}} (e.g.{{flag|Canada|1957|name=Canadian}}). The reason is simple: the coat of arms, like the flag, also changed over time for most of the polities. For example, see Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

missing ones

Kazakhstan

Turkey's should be that instead of the current one.

Macedonia

These are not coats of arms. -Ssolbergj (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper categorization

Does this template belong on Category:Single-image_insertion_templates? While it does insert only one image, it's a variable image. Nearly all of the items in that category contain a specific image, e.g., a {{Hash-tag}}. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016

Please add the following line to the Cities section: | Vantaa=Vantaa.vaakuna.svg MMN (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

The template's coat of arms of Iceland is incorrect. See Coat of arms of Iceland. Please change: "Iceland=Insigne Islandicum.svg" to "Iceland=Coat_of_arms_of_Iceland.svg". 185.40.122.35 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The template is supposed to use the simplest variant of the coat of arms. See this section which explains why the image is used as it is. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous COAs?

Ssolbergj (talk · contribs), can you please explain why you changed a lot of images to ones with pseudo-Latin names created by yourself, of which at least one is clearly in error?  Sandstein  14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

1) It's not pseudo-Latin. 2) I'll answer you in the discussion that you first started on Commons. -Ssolbergj (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why were many COAs changed to other ones that are clearly erroneous? A.h. king • Talk to me! 23:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

They are not erroneous. See discussion here as well as Template:Coat_of_arms#Principles_for_consistency_and_visibility. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, please desist from replacing official escutcheons with your own creations without giving a convincing rationale first. Thank you for your cooperation. Gryffindor (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I did refer to this discussion. Please contribute there, it's the same subject. - Ssolbergj (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What is this discussion you are referring to? All it shows is that you are freely inventing coats of arms on a certain template, which has nothing to do with the subject here at hand. It does not address the issue why your inventions should supersede the official versions of the national smaller coats of arms/escutcheons. You cannot replace the official coat of arms with your creations without giving convincing arguments to the wider audience first. Only after it has been generally approved may you start replacing them, which is not the case however. You need to therefore participate in a constructive dialog first before going ahead and doing a complete replacement all over the project, not the other way around. Gryffindor (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that something invalid or illegal has been introduced is untrue. This discussion. Please join it, I am pleased to see that you finally engage instead of trying to force through an edit. In line with wikipedia's policy, this is the time for discussion, not edit-warring through a bold, disputed change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You should have waited till a consensus has been reached in the discussion without editing the whole template here. Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs only (such as File:Arms of Spain.svg). A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The consensus is to use the previous images with English filenames. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This template collects coats of arms for easy incorporation into articles. There has been a minor edit war about whether the template should use the images with Latin filenames created by Ssolbergj (talk · contribs) as collected at Commons:Category:Insigne Latinae, or the ones used previously. What do editors think?  Sandstein  11:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Use the previous images. I do not trust the competence of Ssolbergj to create accurate and useful coats of arms. That is because the one image by them that caused me to look at this issue was, at least in its initial version, grossly inaccurate (see the Commons discussion), and also because their resorting to edit-warring to push the use of their own images reflects poorly on the user and by extension casts doubts on the merits of their work.  Sandstein  11:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Sandstein. Most of the creations of User:Ssolbergj as mentioned above for example in this category are WP:ORIGINAL and not backed up. Gryffindor (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree [although I believe discussion, rather than some sort of vote, is needed], Comment: "I do not trust the competence of Ssolbergj" What kind of nonsense argument is that? Sandstein, you should elaborate and be specific about what you believe to be invalid/false. You clearly have abandoned the Commons delete discussion that you created, in which you initially claimed that the coat of arms is invalid, clearly ignoring the information given to clarify that it in fact is a valid version: see this template, which explains basic facts on the validity of various depictions of coats of arms, as well as the premise of this template. Instead of concluding on this subject and start various new discussions elsewhere, you ought to continue the discussion. I recommend everyone to read the following before voicing an opinion on what's supposedly 'invalid':

Basis for this template.

As such, heraldry isn't a kind of logo that only has one valid image; an escutcheon that complies with its blazon is considered to be correct in terms of heraldry. Also, no one should force an edit through prematurely without a consensus. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Sandstein. Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs only (such as File:Arms of Spain.svg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.h. king (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment And? Your arugument/conclusion is what? No one, maybe except of Sandstein, disputes the fact that an escutcheon represents a valid depiction of a coat of arms. - Ssolbergj (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Sandstein: You still haven't engaged in the deletion discussion you started, claiming that a coat of arms - supposedly concerning more coats of arms - is invalid. Yet you persist in drawing the erroneous conclusion that the coat of arms in question is "invalid". I completely disagree, based on the reasons mentioned above. This template has been created and expanded on this basis, and in my opinion these factual rules of heraldry should remain the template's basis. - Ssolbergj (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Information Sandstein starts this section by claiming that the options are some previous set of images as opposed to an equivalent set of images created by me. I have never added any image that is in breach with heraldic principles, I have for instance added new coats of arms that haven't been in this template before. This question asked, and what he suggests, is rather unclear. - Ssolbergj (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Use the previous version due to the names; English filenames are clear and understandable. There's also a degree of absurdity in using Latin for countries which didn't exist under their current names when Latin was a living language. ("Cuvaiti"? Really?) I realize this doesn't address the images themselves, but it's an issue. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment "I realize this doesn't address the images themselves" Precisely! In my view, the question ought to be what the images use in this template depict, not in which language they are titled on Commons - Finnish, French or German or whatever. Why on earth would that be relevant at all for this template's use in wikipedia? Contrary to what Sandstein might suggest, it's not as if there are two sets of identical images, which are identical except that they are named in English and another language. -Ssolbergj (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Use previous images with English file names. The Latin filenames create confusion and misapprehension on all kinds of levels. By the way, the Latin files are not listed in the link Sandstein gave, but I found them here, starting about halfway down and continued on the following pages: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Previous images for now. There is no way to have an RfC on dozens of different changes all at once. Some of the images may be improved by this, or not, based on different opinions. By joining them all together, this discussion automatically degrades to focus on the editors, not the edits. (Or degrades to focus on the file names, which doesn't seem significant to me.) Instead, we should have a separate RfC on each of the reasons for changing, such as "excluding embellishments" or "avoid marshaling" (narrower reasons would be better), with each individual affected before and after change displayed, so that they can be discussed and !voted on individually (embellishments or marshaling may be preferred on some but not others). Unless this is done, there is no mechanism to discuss the changes rather than the editors. Until this is done, keep the previous status quo. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit protection

Commons Why is the edit protection introduced? The status quo was the one before Gryffindor edit-warred his edit through and introduced the protection. And he has consistently refused to take part in this discussion. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion proposal at Commons

I've proposed the deletion of the files at issue at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Proposed mass deletion of Latin-named coats of arms uploaded by Ssolbergj.  Sandstein  09:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OriginalResearch Template breaks articles

The OriginalResearch template which user Gryffindor added to this template is disrupting various articles, such as Member state of the European Union. I have placed the template in noinclude tags to fix this. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms versus non-coats of arms

Sandstein made this revert. The premise of this template is clear: it contains coats of arms. Therefore the following four should be used for Italy, France and the United States:

• 
• 
• 

I.e. these, or any other images that adhere to the relevant blazons, instead of the non-heraldic images Sandstein reverted back to.

In which language these images are titled is irrelevant.

Sandstein also reverted the addition of Valence's arms, without stating any reason for this. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues, one procedural and one material. Procedurally, the consensus in the RfC above is quite clear: nobody wants to use your oddly Latin-named images. And materially: you are engaging in original research. For example, you allege that your image File:Insigne Francum.svg represents the French coat of arms, and you reject the previous image, File:Armoiries république française.svg, on the grounds that it is not a coat of arms. But France does not have a coat of arms: Coat of Arms of France redirects to National emblem of France, which explains that the emblem is used in lieu of an actual coat of arms. The coat of arms you created at File:Insigne Francum.svg has no source (not even an official blazon) and no official standing; as best as I can tell nobody uses it, as a coat of arms or otherwise, and it is completely your own invention. The same goes for the invented U.S. coat of arms you display in the gallery above. That is the reason why I think you continuing to edit-war to use these images is disruptive.  Sandstein  16:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2016

I have edit request to change Coat of arms of the Czech Republic back to from greater version. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Spain

I have never seen the modern Coat of Arms of Spain used without the pillars of Hercules and royal crown. The source legislation provided for explicitly includes the pillars and crown, leaving no provision for use of the arms with the escutcheon alone. Nor does the other legislation linked to in this official page of the government of Spain: [2]. I understand the urge to simplify national coats of arms explained on the template page, but in this case, it doesn't make sense to simplify the arms to nothing but the escutcheon. --J. E. C. E. (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I would say that this is a question of heraldic practice (internationally), and in that sense it is conventional also to display the escutcheon by itself. (See also this.) -Ssolbergj (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

But even internationally I haven't seen the modern Spanish escutcheon used by itself. As for your example, I identify that gate as of one of two entrances to the Biblioteca Nacional de España, built in the 19^th Century. Commons actually has several pictures of the same coat of arms (see C:Category:Palacio de Biblioteca y Museos Nacionales - Biblioteca Nacional and subcategories). The legislation I mention above provides for maintaining old coats of arms on structures if they are historic/artistic landmarks, if the coat of arms is integral to the design or if removing the coat of arms could damage the structure, all of which seem to apply in this case. J. E. C. E. (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Ireland

The template links to the island of Ireland instead of the Republic of Ireland when using the template. -> Ireland Even though the Irish Coat of arms that is used for the template is only used by the Republic if Ireland. Haage42 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

I am planning of adding svg coat of arms of Greek municipalities as I did a day before that page got protected TakisA1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This request is not specific enough to be actioned. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Please add the coat of arms of Gauteng Province South Africa. Also, please lower the protection level of this template as soon as possible. There does not appear to be a significant record of vandalism on this page, and the effect seems to be mostly to frustrate contributions. PotvinSux (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Primefac What do you think of reducing the protection level? Seems to receive continual constructive editing from non-template editors Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, though you should request your change in an X to Y format Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: That was quick, thank you! You're right on the format; apologies.PotvinSux (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Seals and Emblems

The scope of this template has never been rigidly defined as far as I understand. Some users have in the past deleted seals and emblems included by others on the grounds that they are not heraldic coats of arms, although a number remain without incident. Given that there is no separate template for seals and emblems of governmental entities (and that if there were, it would be a 1:1 mirror of this one with the word "coat of arms" swapped for "seals" and/or "emblems"), I suggest making it explicit that we include governmental and quasi-governmental entities' seals and emblems here as well where they lack a coat of arms.PotvinSux (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi PotvinSux. A flag ≠ a coat of arms ≠ a logo ≠ a seal. This template has from its inception been defined as a template for coats of arms, per the documentation/principles. Consequently non-heraldic symbols (logos, seals, emblems, flags etc.) should be excluded. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: I'm not sure that everyone has gotten the memo, but I think that's a reasonable position. Consequently, I've created Template:Seal, which is basically just a mirror of this one for everything that isn't heraldic. There are more than a few examples of non-heraldic insignia here and they need to be migrated over. I'm perfectly happy to take that up, but I am concerned about transclusions. Do you have any thoughts on how to approach this with minimal disruption?PotvinSux (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

As of 1 January 2018, the Norwegian counties of Nord-Trøndelag and Sør-Trøndelag have merged. Trøndelag's coat of arms is at File:Trøndelag våpen.png 46.17.166.68 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 DonePotvinSux (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

EuroCorps

The correct one is

EC Eurocorps.svg --Gunnar.offel (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

{{Coat of arms|Donetsk Oblast}}

• 

Ιγκόρ (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 13:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I want you to change the 1999 version of the coat of arms of the region to the lesser version of the modern one. Here is the logo of the local police department and here is a decoration of the regional council. — Ιγκόρ (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--B dash (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Change coat of arms of Bavaria

I have a request to change the template of the coat of arms of Bavaria to the official lesser coat of arms of Bavaria.

Current: Official: — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrakyYT (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

add these: | Angola=Emblem of Angola.svg | Cape Verde=Coat of arms of Cape Verde.svg | Comoros = Seal of the Comoros.svg | Democratic Republic of the Congo = Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg | Eritrea = Emblem of Eritrea (or argent azur).svg | Ethiopia = Emblem of Ethiopia.svg | Guinea-Bissau = Emblem of Guinea-Bissau.svg | Madagascar = Seal of Madagascar.svg | Mozambique=Emblem of Mozambique.svg | Rwanda=Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg | Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha=Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg | The Gambia=Coat of arms of The Gambia.svg Dotalim0204 (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Added @Dotalim0204:. You can test again to see if it's all OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I forgot to add one more thing: | Mauritania=Seal of Mauritania.svg , thanks for your help --Dotalim0204 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Dotalim0204 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

4.ger.1 GERMAN STATES

The template uses a mix of symbols and varying classes of COAs for the German States.

Generally all states have lesser COAs. So that would be my first choice.

• Berlin: replace symbol with lesser COA
• Bavaria: replace (borderless) symbol with lesser COA
• Bremen: replace middle COA with lesser COA
• Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: replace greater COA with lesser COA

See de:Liste der Wappen in Deutschland#Wappen der Länder and the stamp series de:Wappen der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

The official symbols (Wappenzeichen, Signet, Logo) are varying in quality and are personally not my first choice. See de:Wappenzeichen in Deutschland#Bundesländer

Further suggestions:

• Move Bremen into german states section to highlight possible confusion with "Free Hanseatic City of Bremen" (keep both, as I don't know about current usage)
• Remove Hamburg from cities section: Hamburg is duplicated in Cities and in States (same COA, so no harm)
• Move Berlin to german states section : missing in german states (see above)

--Aeroid (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

Please add a line for the city of Stralsund's arms: File:DEU Stralsund COA.svg. 2.247.242.50 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Trialpears (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

Add the formatting "<! ---" prior to "3. CITIES". Chilokver (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Malaysia

Please change the coat of arms of Malaysia to the new one

. The one in the template is an old version of coat of arms.CyberTroopers (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, just edit on here. OktaRama2010 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Add back Cape Verde

It seems that the Coat of Arms of Cape Verde has not been included. kiepier (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)