Talk:Armorial of Europe

Europe Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Armorial of Europe is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is greenland missing in the list of the dependent territories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:3F2D:D8A:B0F7:9496:4661:5936 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just a list of Europe's coat of arms, I would like to see an article with an overview of their history, common features, and possible influences or interactions between them, including the list at the end. NerdyNSK 12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many info deleted[edit]

Where's Lesser achievement, Middle achievement and Greater achievement now? No variety of different versions now? Chronophobos (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "holder"?[edit]

Question, what do you mean by "holder" of the arms? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering the same thing. What is a holder? John Anderson 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the Greater Coat of Arms of the Realm, (or "Grote Rijkswapen"), is the personal Coat of Arms of the Monarch. That is currently Queen Beatrix, making her the holder.

I know it might not be the best describtion, but the best I can really think of. Please feel free to change it, or give some suggestions so that we can discuss it. JackSparrow Ninja 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean the government official, or office, that officially keeps the seal in their care? If that is the case, I get that easily. In the US, the secretary of state of each of the 50 states keep the state seal in their offices. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every arms have a formal holder of that kind, especially not in republics. And a seal is not the same as a coat of arms. John Anderson 18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the second part. I usually look in the national laws about the national symbols to find out the person or body that is the official keeper of the emblem. That is how I found out about the Belarusian emblem's holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases the coat of arms are treated as the corporate arms of the whole state, in which case the armiger is the state itself. IMO the column is unnecessary since it imposes one particular pov on heraldry and assumes that sovereign states follow that system (the British kind of heraldry is just one way of doing heraldry in the Western sense). Even worse, it signals a misunderstanding on the part of WP editors on the uses of heraldry.

Bottom line is that IMO the column should be removed. 118.90.7.227 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since two weeks have passed without any comment, I will be WP:BOLD and remove it. 118.90.25.253 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed[edit]

This table is in need of cleanup. Somebody changed a headline from "motto" to "text" so most of these entries are now incorrect. The "holder" category is also problematic, since many of these insignia have no official holder unless we consider the "Kingdom of ..." sufficient. It would make more sense to change it to a column mentioning the introduction of the current symbol. Alternatively, the column should be removed completely. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many holders[edit]

What if there are several office holders and organizations entitled to use a coat of arms, shouldn't all be listed ? (For example - see Latvia, article on coat of arms lists who can use it) -- Xil/talk 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While many organizations and offices can use the seal, what we are trying to get at with holders is the following: which official government body or official is the keeper of the current image/dies of the arms. The example I can bring is, in the United States, the seals of the various states are kept in the offices of the Secretary of State. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png[edit]

The image Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives the impression "Seeland" is a sovereign recognized country. It's not and that is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.7.151 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Turkey does not have an official coat-of-arms. So, I guess it is fair to state it "none" on the table. However, there is a link to Emblems of Turkey on the same row, so that people can see why. --Infestor (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Turkey even on the list? Turkey isn't a European nation. 59.101.114.72 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 1 UK with 1 Coat of Arms.[edit]

There's only one sovereign UK state. The Scotland region should be taken off the list. It's not a sovereign state or even a dependency, just a region. If it's listed, so too should Bavaria's etc. UK should have one coat of arms listed just like every other country. That's also reality. UK only has 1 coat of arms for UK. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but by the terms of both the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801; the British monarch has a separate coat of arms for use in Scotland. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greece[edit]

The previous versions for the arms of Greece (ie this and this) are speculative. The official specifications, which can be found here, show the arms as being this, and that the shape of the escutcheon is this. The Coat of Arms is almost exclusively monochrome - only the army uses a coloured version, with the wreath in gold. --Michail (blah) 20:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Arms of Montenegro.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Greater coat of arms of the French Republic.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of this article[edit]

As of now this article feels like it's half thought-plays with the inclusion of proposed and made-up escutcheons and other variants that are not used by the countries at all. Just because certain countries use different variants does not mean that there should be a alleged variations for the rest. I'm not sure what's the purpose is for including objections like "unheraldic emblems" and "use of royal crowns by republics" either. Many of these countries include crowns in their arms for historical and cultural reasons as they can be seen as symbols of sovereignty in general, either way I don't think it's fitting for the site to include such remarks in the article. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The unsourced terms 'unheraldic' and 'heraldically questionable' seem both questionable in themselves. The latter in particular could be read as a value judgement rather than a neutral statement. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is problematic in this regard. For example, it seems to suggest that Malta has three variants of coats of arms (a "Coat of arms (escutcheon)", a "Lesser achievement" and a "Greater achievement"), which are pictured below:

This is not the case: the only coat of arms which is actually used in the country is the third one (with the mural crown and the olive and palm branches). Most probably the situation is similar for other countries. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ssolbergj has kept reverting edits and it the culprit behind the issues you're talking about. Myself and other have had to revert his edits yet again, and he got very huffy when I confronted him about it. I have reverted the article again, but be warned he may revert them yet again, too. Ping 693 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links[edit]

Should every duplicate word be a link? Every "gules" "fess" "argent" and "sable" links to the same page (respectively). It looks overdone. The one word, I understand to link every time, is "or" to not confuse it with the conjunction. The first mention=link could be enough? Kr3bm4 (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]