Talk:Coat of arms of Norway

message: I have twice recently felt obliged to remove unsuccessful attempts at improving the approved royal coat of arms of Norway. The correct image may have a low resolution, but a low resolution is better than an incorrect depiction of an official symbol of the monarchy. Roede 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improven the robe, crown and order. The lion is the 1905 design and everything is correct. This new robe is closer to the on on www.kongehuset.no than the old jpeg. If you still aren't satisfied, then download Inkscape and correct it yourself. (it's easy) Dont think that Image:Roynorw.JPG is the "set in stone 100% correct". Probably not the original by Eilif Peterssen. (there are 1000 different versions out on the net. for example this)) The SVG is much closer to this than Image:Roynorw.JPG, so please don't revert.S. Solberg J. 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are getting closer now! The lion is excellent, and the crown is the correct 1905 version with the funny little lion cub on top. Only the chain of the Order of St. Olav still has potential for improvement. The chain ought to be more chain-like. In the shields along the chain, those on the (heraldic) sinister side are facing left, probably because you have inverted the opposite half. All the lions should face the same way, to the (heraldic) dexter or right side. The ciphers of St. Olav and the little crowns ought to be outlined more clearly. Carry on! Roede 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ssolbergj's image is very good but why not upload a drawing by Eilif Peterssen for reference? He died in 1928, so the original drawing is PD now (legal restrictions still apply naturally). Valentinian T / C 11:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Eilif Peterssen's painting from 1905, in the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. Roede 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that this version of the royal coat of arms was replaced with a slightly different one at some point during the last century. If you look at the official website you will see that the one they use has a narrower robe and a cross on the top of the crown instead of the small Norwegian lion.  So, we should probably replace the image in this article, and move the one used now to the gallery. -- Nidator T / C 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that change happened with the redesign of the Royal House web pages. Also the crown is very much different and it is ajusted to be B/W. I am not so sure it should be treated as an official change in the design.Inge (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just the website though. I have a book called "Königliche Paläste" that is a German translation of an Italian book from 1999 and in the section about Norway there is an image of an embroidered version of the royal coat of arms that is now used on the website. -- Nidator T / C 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the crown design is at least from the after the present king and queen took office, but I can't be sure. As you can see it is used in the Harald/Sonja monogram here. I think I'll just send a mail to the palace and ask.Inge (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan. Tell us what the reply is. -- Nidator T / C 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Did anything come of this correspondence? -- Nidator T / C 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On the right is a version of the Arms as according to both that painting, and this engraving. I've asked Ssolbergj for a source for his, as I can't find ANY with the purple mantle and less-detailed lion he's pushing now, and all he said was that he didn't care what pics I have, and called me a troll. He feels the other version "looks better", but I don't think that's enough. Fry1989 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal coat of arms 

message: I have added the coat of arms of the Earldom of Iceland, Orkney and Kristiansand, but perhaps they (and Jemtland?) should be included in a second gallery, seeing as they are the coat of arms of foreign/sub-national entities. Opinions? -- Nidator T / C 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earldom of Iceland, Orkney and Kristiansand? 

message: :Image:Politi-norway.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Politi-norway.png

message: The article says:
Håkon the Old (1217-1263) used a shield with a lion. The earliest preserved reference to the colour of the arms is the King's Saga written down in 1220.
This needs to be specified. In which saga is Håkon's coat of arms described? Which saga was written down in 1220? Håkon Håkonsson (Håkon the Old)'s saga was written down in the 1260's. Something is wrong, but what?--Barend (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has replied, and no one has modified the sentence in the article, so I deleted it, as it is meaningless - what "the King's Saga written down in 1220" is supposed to mean is impossible to tell.--Barend (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat of arms from 1220? 

message: I think the changes Ssolbergj made to the gallery section(s) make sense, but I also think that there is merit in having a section for derived or related coat of arms. The ones I have in mind are those of the Earldom of Iceland and Orkney, rather than the Norwegian police force, army, etc. -- Nidator T / C 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery section 

message: It'd be cool if someone could provide sourced blazons of the early forms of the arms. I've noticed that a number of articles on medieval topics appear to be using the royal standard anachronistically in infoboxes and whatnot.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific blazons 

message: Snorre, who was an employee of King Sverre - was he really? Not of Håkon Håkonson? Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the sentence concerned. — Breadbasket 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snorre 

message: The illustration of the national coat of arms used here has a three dimentional and old style that is not used in our time by the Norwegian governmental authorities. The lion style is from the old Salomonsen encyclopedia and is different from the style of Peterssen in 1905, of Hallvard Trætteberg in 1936-37 and of Sverre Morken today. From a heraldic point of view it is OK to have different drawings, but not if we want to give information about how the arms are used by the actual authorities in Norway today. The royal family is still using the Peterssen lion style and not Salomonsen's style.Hans Cappelen (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please se my comment in the section Construction of article. — Breadbasket 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why use Salomonsen's lion style?

message: I apologise for having reverted some contributions that in my eyes do not respect the construction of this article. The construction is as following:
* The reader is presented with the Norwegian coat of arms in its most basic state, i.e. a golden lion on a red shield. (The private Salomonsen version of 1924 (File:Coat of Arms of Norway (1924) non crown.png) is perfect for this purpose.)
* Then follows the specific Royal Coat of Arms.
* Then follows the specific State Coat of Arms.
This construction is violated when the infobox with the State Coat of Arms is placed in the article's upper corner. That infobox belongs to the section where the State Coat of Arms is described. The first image seen by the reader, introducing him or her to the Norwegian coat of arms, should without doubt be a golden lion on a red shield—and nothing more.
If one desires to introduce the article with an infobox of the State Coat of Arms, one has to change the construction of the article too (and perhaps even the title). — Breadbasket 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the introduction is wrong when you claim that this coat of arms has a "function" as the royal arms. As you probably know, the royal coat of arms has a mantel and the order of St. Olaf as central and identifying parts of the royal arms. I consider this to be a fact both from a heraldic and a legal point of view, and it is demonstrated in the wording of the royal decree in 1905 about the royal arms. The shield alone is the national, state and governmental coat of arms and not the royal arms. May be you don't mean to deny that fact, but the wording you have reverted to is misleading as I read it. Will you reconsider this and revert to the meaning in the wording that I have written? Or may be you can rewrite it to a better wording but with the same meaning as I meant to give it?Hans Cappelen (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at Coat of Arms of Denmark to see how to rewrite and arrange the article in a better way than here for Norway as it is now. Hans Cappelen (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have tried to adjust the article on the Danish model. I welcome further comments and suggestions. — Breadbasket 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend to have the construction of the article more like The Coat of Arms of Denmark and to let the National arms be placed on top of the article.  The legal and heraldic position of the Norwegian king is rather similar to that of the Danish queen.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Norwegian heraldist I am not happy with, and not convinced by, the way this article is written and edited now. I also mean that it is misleading to use the illustrations in the way it is done in the article. A few examples: I have not seen that the crown prince and the prince are using the arms with the mantle. The national and royal arms are edited and placed somewhat chaotic, and the quality of several newly made illustrations in the article are not satisfying. I recommend all the Wikipedia users working with this article, to do some more work with its wording and illustrations.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now tried to correct some of the wrong and incomplete information in the article but I am still not content with the language and some of the information. Regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologise that I have not been able to participate here recently. I suggest that you do what you find scientifically correct or defendable, at the same time as you with a genuine interest try to understand that Norwegian heraldry is more than decrees and praxis. It is also a matter of tradition, ideas, and theoretical possibilities. There is, for example, no doubt that the Crown Princess has a specific coat of arms even though she—at least in public—barely uses it. The Lion + the Crown Princess's Crown (as seen in her monogramme, for example) + mantle + other achievements = her coat of arms. — Breadbasket 18:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction of article 

message: Why are the illustrations of the royal standard and the crown prince's standard changed? The style of the lion is not in accordance with the flags used by the king and the crown prince. You will find the correct ones at the Norwegian Wikipedia in the article Kongeflagg. I feel that it would be a good idea to change it back to the illustrations used before the last change ......... Regards  Hans Cappelen (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we ready to change back now? regards Hans Cappelen (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal standards 

message: I cannot quite understand why the Parliament (Stortinget) is not the most important user of the national coat of arms in the modern democracy of Norway. Why change that without any explanation? The King's position and the powers of the King's Council are both according to the Constitution and the Parliament has the power to change the Constitution. Hans Cappelen (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Parliament is one of three equal power branches, according to the Constitution. That said, the Parliament is, compared with the King (Government) and the Supreme Court, the branch that uses the coat of arms least. They mainly use a logo.  No More 18 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Parliament

message: These two concepts are not used in Norwegian - instead we use The Royal Arms (kongevåpenet) and The Arms of the Realm (riksvåpenet) as being two different coats of arms. "Greater and lesser arms" are may be words translated from Danish or Swedish. So the words greater variant and lesser variant are somewhat misleading and should be omitted, in my opinion. Hans Cappelen (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These two terms are not used in Norway. I hope that the responsible user(s) or someone else would like to correct it. No More 18 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater and lesser variant 

message: Several of the arms in the article are not arms used by the Royal House of Norway or other Norwegian authorities; especially the stylized royal crown (with the demi-lion on top) which is looking more like the style of the Danish or other royal crowns than the crown used in Norway. You may say that they are valid heraldic interpretations of the blazons, but I don't think that is sufficient for the users of an encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Most users will probably like to know how the arms really look - and looked - like. The same is the case with several historic arms in the article. They are interpreted by an artist of our time and are not pictures of the arms as they were used. I suggest to omit all these and replace them with pictures more loyal to the actual use.Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations and not actually used