This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany This template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Politics 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

I think the new English-only design is okay and small enough to stuff it into articles. -- till we *) (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why are you two changing the eagle to and back? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 09:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the better drawing while the other guy is insisting on the ugly version.

Why not take a look at http://www.bund.de/nn_58892/Microsites/Protokoll/Staatliche-Symbole/Bundeswappen/Bundeswappen-knoten.html__nnn=true and decide for yourself which is the correct version? --213.54.217.1 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In heraldry, there is no such thing as a "correct version". A coat of arms is defined solely by what in German is called Blasonierung, and the artist is free to interpret it. This very basic heraldic rule is clearly recognized by the German state, which itself uses several interpretations of the coat of arms. Just look at www.bundestag.de for an example.

This is not a coat of arms. Also, we are not talking about heraldry but about national symbols, which do have a precise definition. --213.54.217.1 15:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a coat of arms, and this is about heraldry. If you want to use heraldic symbols, you have to follow heraldic rules.

Hello, I as a resident of Germany think that the template should be slightly corrected. Angela merkel may not lay back on the chancellor's seat, since she still needs to be affirmed by parliament. Officially, Gerhard Schröder is still chancellor, even though Mrs. Merkel is highly probably the next Head of Government.

I agreeElectionworld 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in the template there is on obvious mistake and one disputed:

1. Obvious: The Federal Convention (Germany) is not part of the Legislature because it votes on no law.
2. Disputed:
   • The Federal Constitutional Court 2014 (highest court of Germany) states, that the President of Germany is not part of the executive:

     German: "Der Bundespräsident lässt sich nach der Ausgestaltung seines Amtes nicht einer der drei klassischen Gewalten zuordnen".

     Translation: "The Federal President cannot classified to one of the classical three powers according to the Organisation of his office".

   • But there is a dissent opinion by Manfred G. Schmidt 2005:

     German: "An der Spitze der Exekutive in Deutschland stehen der Bundeskanzler als Regierungschef und der Bundespräsident als Staatsoberhaupt".

     Translation: "At the top of the executive in Germany are the Federal Chancellor as head of government and the Federal President as head of state".

Habitator terrae (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is corrected by me. Habitator terrae (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirrortemplar: Why did you reverted it? Habitator terrae (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC) PS: link to the official translation of the verdict: "[T]he Federal President cannot be classified as belonging to any of the three traditional powers", which are widely known the executive, legislative, judicial powers.[reply]