Talk:Linköping Municipality

This page should be revised a bit, since Linköping municipality has a new governance after the election of 2006. Paul Lindvall and the moderate party is in charge of affairs now i think. Further the Weapon of Linköping is somewhat different now, i think they revised the looks of it in the early 90´s, but im not sure wether its official or not, hence, i didnt edit it. For those who speak swedish of you, check this link for history on the weapon-topic; [1]

--Plechanov (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Plechanov

Hi the Coat of arms is still the same. It's just the (copyrighted) way in which the municipality now depicts it that's different. Since the "official" version is coyrighted wikipedia uses a free alternative. Please not that both are equally correct since they are both based on the official blasoning which is what defines the Coat of Arms. /Lokal_Profil 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i see, thanks for the info. Do you know why theres another weapon on the roadsigns, they still use the waepon used between 1946-70 i think.

--Plechanov (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Plechanov

Sorry, not sure I understood the question. Do you mean that they use a different weapon compared to the one we use here or compared to the one they use on say their website? /Lokal_Profil 14:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for beeing unclear, im not really sure wich is the official weapon. In Sweden we have roadsigns with the weapon of the municipality, when one enters the muni. THAT weapon is a different one from the one that is on Linköpings website, but it could be that "Vägverket" (The Swedish Road Administration) isnt up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plechanov (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I understand. Yes most likely Vagverkets roadsigns arent up to date. I think ther is a similar situation in sv:Hedemora kommun (pics on sv.wiki). In addition to this there is also the additional confusion that whilst the symbol on the road signs (and in the article) is a coat of arms the symbol on the webpage is a logo. THe distinction might seem trivial but from a copyright (and free interpretations of what it should look like) point of view the two are very distinct. /Lokal_Profil 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is about being "up to date". All pictures of the CoA (could a "vapen" in this sense really be called "weapon" in English. It is not a "gun") must not be exactely the same. The blazon is still the same, but the pictures could be slightly different. But that is O.K. in heraldry. --Muniswede (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vapen is "Coat of arms". /Lokal_Profil 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, its not a big question really but thought it could be worth mentioning. --Plechanov (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Plechanov

The lion that features prominently on the municipality website is not the coat of arms, it is the logo of the municipality. It does not match the blazon, and was created for marketing reasons around the year 2000 rather than by royal decree hundreds of years ago. To be consistent with most municipality articles on Wikipedia, I believe the coat of arms should be used, as is the case now. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)