This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Dear C mon: the reorganization is much more of a pain than something helpful in saving space. --Camptown (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized the template following reorganizations of templates like ((Socialism sidebar)), ((Anarchism sidebar)) and ((Communism sidebar)). The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons
Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not
Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.
I have got some questions why I prefer the version to the left and there have been some comments on which version is more correct or official. This is my answer: A coat of arms is not defined by a picture but rather by the wording of its blazon. Thus all blue shields with three crowns two above one are representations of the coat of arms of Sweden (unless it's not a coat of arms of someone else using the same charges and tinctures). If you google "tre kronor" and "sköld", you will find all sorts of versions, including shields that are close to the one I think currently is the best version on Wikipedia. I can agree that the shield in the version I have removed is close to several versions used by the Swedish government. The crowns are designed in a style that is often called "flatestil" ("surface style"; from the norwegian heraldist Hallvard Trætteberg). However, the arched crown above the shield is in no way near this flatestil. It is almost three dimensional in its style and differs from the style of the shield. Since a coat of arms should be designed in a uniform style, this version should not be used. /B****n (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One (or several) anonymous users has stated that the version to the right is "better, more correct and official". He/she/it/they has/have however not given any reasons for this assessment.
When it comes to "more correct and official" the statement is just plain wrong. The coats of arms of the Kingdom of Sweden is defined by law in lag om Sveriges riksvapen ("The Coat of Arms of Sweden act"). According to this law, the Kingdom of Sweden has two coats of arms, a greater and a lesser coat of arms. The lesser coat of arms is defined thus: består av en med kunglig krona krönt blå sköld med tre öppna kronor av guld, ordnade två över en ("consists of a blue shield charged with three golden coronets, two over one, and crowned by a royal (i.e. arched) crown"). There is no other definition of the coa. Thus, any version which is in line with this definition is a correct version. Furthermore, there is not just one rendition of the coa which is used at all official occasions. There are several "official renditions". Some versions which are used officially corresponds more whith the version above to the left and others more with the version to the right.
When it comes to which coa is "better", it is a more subjective matter and should be subject to discussion. I have given my thoughts on this above and I am more than willing to discuss this further. /B****n (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well no one uses your version and you do not have any sources! which makes your edits original research, i have sources and the correct version is used by all:
I have given one source: Swedish law. Besides that none of the official web sites linked uses the version above to the right. Since the Swedish National Archives, the institution where the Swedish State Herald is employed, has released a version of the Swedish state coat of arms for use on Wikipedia, I suggest that we use that version.
.svg)
