Talk:Coat of arms of Oslo

This article should be moved and regain its original headline: Seal of Oslo. In the article Oslo, the seal is mentioned in the section City seal, with an invitation to look up the main article: Seal of Oslo. Accept the invitiation, and find yourself redirected from Seal of Oslo to Coat of arms of Oslo.

The section on the seal in the Oslo article confirms that the move from "Seal of Oslo" to "Coat of arms of Oslo" was unwise, as its first sentence makes obvious:

"Oslo is one of very few cities in Norway, besides Bergen and Tønsberg, that does not have a formal coat of arms, but which uses a city seal instead."

The article was moved on 5 August 2015 by Ssolbergj, whose argument was that "This is heraldry; the fact that the heraldic symbol is arranged in a circular shape does not mean it's not a coat of arms. See commons versions."

This argument is not convincing. Admittedly, the City of Oslo does call this symbol a coat of arms, but that appellation only reveals a lack of knowledge on heraldry. The origin of this symbol is a medieval seal, and its present design faithfully retains the sigillographic conventions – circular shape, the city's motto around the edge, and a complicated image with many elements. Ssolbergj is right in stating that the circular shape does not preclude it from the category of haraldry. But the main argument against calling it a coat of arms is that it violates all the fundamental rules of heraldry: Preferably only two tinctures, one colour and one metal, with only minor details in a third tincture. The field charged with one (or more) clerly outlined two-dimensional figures. Our seal of Oslo has far too many tinctures, some of them unknown to heraldry. And a naturalistic frontal depiction of a seated person with many details is ok in seals, not in heraldry.

My attempt to have the move of SSolbergj reverted, was for baffling reasons rejected:

"You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons: Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself. Please check that you didn't enter the destination title into the "reason" field instead of the "new title" field. The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."

Please, could a compassionate administrator help me to interpret these instructions, and to have the article moved back to its original name? Greetings to all from Lars Roede (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)