Talk:Coat of arms of Iceland

The Colors

The current image of the Icelandic Coat of arms are totally off. I have never ever seen it in official use colored like that. Why does someone so obviously unknowledgable about the Icelandic Coat of arms upload an image that is so completely incorrect? --130.208.189.147 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The old SVG coat of arms

Did anybody kept a backup of the old svg coat of arms?

Thank you! --89.180.179.135 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The coat of arms of the earldom 1262

The coat of arms of the "Roi d'Illande" (King of Iceland) in the Wijnbergen Armorial, ca 1280.

The "baroque" three-dimensional and shaded lion contributed by Ssolbergj in 2009 and recently reintroduced after some weeks' absence is a bit anachronistic, considering the fact that this coat of arms was only in use during the middle ages. The single known depiction is an image in the Wijnbergen Armorial from ca 1280 — 1285: "Roi d'illande". Since it is a derivative of the mediaeval coat of arms of Norway, a mediaeveal heraldic style would be more suitable. For that reason, the original illustration by Kjallakr (File:Iceland COA 13th century.jpg) was a better choice, as he based his design on the present version of the Norwegian coat of arms. Hallvard Trætteberg deliberately modelled his 1937 design on mediaeval royal seals, and rendered it in an unadorned two-dimensional style, typical of 13th century heraldry, although with a slightly modernistic twist.

I would like to sound out the opinions of fellow Wikipedians with heraldic competence before I follow my impulse to revert to the original image by Kjallakr, which is much closer to the Wijnbergen version. That is also the version depicted in the Wikipedia articles in French, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Or would it be a better idea to illustrate this article with a reproduction of the Wijnbergen image, or my rendering of it? Roede (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Trætteberg's design is not less anachronistic if we are to follow such a logic, but the fact of the matter is that in heraldry, the design is completely valid as long as it follows the blazon. Having all the historical coats of arms in the gallary in the same style is thus just as important IMO. The argument of "baroque-ish" versus "medieval" makes no sense as far as I can see. - SSJ ^t 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Same old bs as usual: "As long as it follows the blazon, I can make it any damn way I want". You can't ignore old sources, you can't ignore carvings and other renditions, and to think you're above it is rejected. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Heraldry isn't logomaking, the focus ought to be the blazon. That is the law of heraldry. And BTW, a civilised tone would perhaps be better, eh? - SSJ ^t 07:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to push through an edit of the article before there is a consensus on this talk page. Consistency in designs within an article makes sense. Don't attempt to start an edit war. - SSJ ^t 08:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're the one trying to push stuff through without consensus. Two users are questioning your SVG for being inaccurate, you're the only one who so far supports it. You wanna talk about respecting the discussion page, how about you do it yourself! I am absolutely tired this attitude that some of you heralds have that you can take creative license to make things look however you please, sources and accuracy be damned. It's not helpful here, it's arrogant, and it's dishonest. I may not be well versed in heraldry, and I don't have to be! But I and others wont stand by and allow people to inaccurately display things just because they have a cop-out excuse of "oh, but blazons meanI can do whatever the hell I want!". Do you even have an actual blazon for this image? Since it's from the 13th century, I highly doubt any period blazons for it survive. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pushing through"? The PNG is the file that has just been inserted. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and counting editors makes no sense. Exclamation marks and "I'm sick and tired" won't further your cause, and aren't helpful to anyone here. The laws of heraldry, and the meaning of having a uniform style for images within an article, on the other hand actually are arguments. So please address those arguments instead of insulting people. I'm not being dishonest or not arrogant. Of course it's blazoned. The SVG file has been in this article for a long time, thus it's the status quo, and the discussion on this page is supposed to decide what the content of the article should be. You know that, and you've used such a rationale yourself for keeping your preferred version of the Swedish arms in several articles, so please stop your edit-warring and focus on providing calm arguments here instead. - SSJ ^t 21:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a democracy? But only yesterday you asked me to respect the talk page, and currently consensus (no matter how small) is against you. It may not be a democracy here, but it's not a dictatorship either, you can't just say "I'm right, end of story, what I say goes", and right now that's what you're attempting to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Thus, saying that "it's two versus one" makes no sense. Please use arguments instead of counting editors. - SSJ ^t 20:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

YOU are the one who says respect the talk page and isn't doing it. Two users have a real problem with your self-promotionalist BS, and that you care more about your own artistic freedom than accuracy. Just because you put your SVG here and it was left for some time does not make consensus. If users question it at a later date, while you don't have to agree wit them, you can't dictate to us that your version which greatly differs from sources is somehow "better". So either respect the talk page, where there's more support for the PNG than there is for your SVG, or stop telling me to do it while you don't, thou hypocrite. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never said that status quo means consensus. What I'm saying is that a consensus needs to be reached on the talk page, and that an edit can't be forced through without one. :"there's more support for the PNG than there is for your SVG": you clearly didn't read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This needs to be about arguments, not counting of editors. You use the term accuracy, but since this is heraldry, as long as the blazon is being followed, any image is perfectly accurate. I resent your crude way of characterising other editors, it's borderline trolling. "Two users have a real problem with your self-promotionalist BS": That's your words, not his. - SSJ ^t 22:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidential arms

The escucheons of the country and the president respectively have a somewhat similar design, but they are not the same. A different blazon means a different coat of arms. This article isn't about the presidential arms, thus that coat of arms shouldn't be in the infobox or have a separate infobox in the article, IMO. I'd agree that the separate infobox should be in the article if the article's name had been coats of arms of Iceland, but it isn't. - SSJ ^t 23:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Presidential symbol doesn't warrant it's own article like the US Presidential Seal because there isn't enough history behind it like that emblem, it's simply the escutcheon of Iceland with the full arms superimposed on top. Several other articles include variants like the Presidential coat of arms, or one used by the legislature, this is just nit-picking nonsense. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Include "Mythical names"?

I don't see why the Icelandic word for dragon, for instance, must be included in the infobox. That is just as pointless at it would be to include the danish word for lion (løve) in the article for the danish coat of arms. - SSJ ^t 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any harm that it causes? Also your recent opposition is kinda odd, since when you insisted that the dragon and griffin were supporters rather than a crest, you removed Gammur and Dreki while leaving in Griðungur and Bergrisi, which doesn't look right. Either show all four, or don't show any, but to show the first two and not the others is silly. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of Iceland. 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/20090303085913/http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/upplysingar/Skjaldarmerki/Saga_merkis/ to http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/upplysingar/Skjaldarmerki/Saga_merkis/

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) 00:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)