Talk:Coat of arms of Belgium

[Untitled]

This article has been rewritten. In my last update I have added the official engravings of the arms of the Kingdom as published with the Royal Decree of 1837. Due to the media of the time, this engraving was published without colours. Though this is unfortunate, it does have the greater advantage of showing the arms as they were intended. Richardot 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrapping the coloured versions however is a bad idea. They should be included as well. The older versions have the disadvantage that they don't show the coat of arms as it was intended to be: in color. -- fdewaele, 19:02, 3 November 2007 (CET)

Before we have another round of changing pictures, let me just give three arguments for sticking to the ones I have put in. 1. These are the only official drawings. They may not be to everyone's taste, but they have the merit of being the real stuff rather than a contemporary interpretation. If the wiki-community decides to discard them, the captions should be corrected too! 2. The interpretation that has been used as a substitute for the great arms was done by Roger Harmignies in the 1960s. As always he did a good job. Still, I am not at all sure that it is in the public domain. 3. The arms that have been substituted for the small arms are faulty and not exactly great art work either.Richardot (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. A quick check at the Belgian passport cover, the site of the monarchy or of the government is enough to observe that they adopt a more stylized version of the small coat of arms. In fact, it is a poor modern notion that a coat of arms should be "padronized". Anyway, the "faulty" PNG version used here is more close than the original one defended by you. --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my point. I wouldn't mind if for instance the version currently used by the Royal Household was substituted for the original drawing. What I do object to however, is the distinctly poor artwork of the image that was originally attached to this article. If heraldry is to withstand the onslaught of logos, it is going to be through good artwork, not sloppy and faulty images.Richardot (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have reassessed this article as Start-class. It fails on two of the six B-class criteria: 1) it lacks in-line citations and could do with one or two more references generally; 2) Technical language is not sufficiently wiki-linked to be clear, and it could be altered to make some terms clearer. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Design of the Coat of Arms

The coats of arms shown for the Belgian royal family do not match the official designs in the royal decree of 2019, nor the design shown in the website of the Belgian monarchy. Not only is the design of the Leo Belgicus different, but also you can see that the official shield has an old French or English shape (square with round pin bottom) as opposed to the continental (or "modern French") shape used by Wikipedia. This problem appears systematically in several pages related to Belgium and to the Belgian monarchy. Should it not be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.76.164.205 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)