Talk:Canadian heraldry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleCanadian heraldry is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 1, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Toolbox

To Do[edit]

  • Add section on Institutional heraldry in Canada
  • Add section on unique Canadian elements/practices (use of First Nations symbolism, unique colours (aqua & lavender), status of women/inheritance (e.g. inheritance through strict primogeniture)
  • Section on Canadian cadency marks

Prince of Canada t | c 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) updated Prince of Canada t | c 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)updated Prince of Canada t | c 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work![edit]

Have any facts from this article been submitted to DYK?? It seems a natural. If it hasn't been done yet, I'd be happy to take a stab at it. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 03:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Cameron suggested I put something in DYK, but I think I'm too close to be able to see what a good fact would be. I'd love it if you did. Prince of Canada t | c 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. This is what I submitted:
HERE is where the posting is located - there are sometimes requests for edits or clarifications before the fact is approved or rejected; it would be good if you could watch to respond to requests if any come up. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 04:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Err.. I hate to be a jerk, but it's a personal coat of arms to which they are entitled... (and I hate hitting save too fast).. many thanks! Prince of Canada t | c 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I fixed a couple MOS things, but the provincial and municipal galleries are something of a problem. They include some fair-use images (Coat of arms of Nunavut, for instance) and are generally unnecessary. Check the fair-use rationales for any images you keep. Some other things:

  • seems a bit much to have "heraldry" repeated in six headers
  • "For an individual to obtain a grant of arms, they..." I would try to avoid singular they, if possible
  • Probably ought to spell out CHA since you only use the acronym once

It would be nice if the refs included the publisher outside the title, but that's just a minor thing. Overall seems a good summary-style article. Gimmetrow 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've reworded the headings, changed the 'they' bit, spelled out CHA, and removed the image galleries as wading through byzantine and often-conflicting fair-use doctrines is far too tiring. Prince of Canada t | c 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The two remaining images with fair use issues are the CHA logo Image:Coat_of_arms_of_the_CHA.jpg, and the current COA of Canada Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg. The 1957 version Image:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).jpg is no longer under crown copyright, so that might be a solution for one image. Gimmetrow 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Renominated and passed GA per User:Dana boomer 24 October, 2008. Congratulations! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canadian heraldry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status (per your polite request on my talk page!) and should have the full review up within the next couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead should be a summary of the entire article; it should not have new information and therefore should have no need of refs. Same with images.
    • Short paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
    • Due to the referencing issues (see below) I have not done a complete check of the prose yet. As soon as I see the referencing issues mostly addressed, I will run through the prose.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All web references need publishers and access dates. This is my main concern with the article at the moment.
    • There are a few areas that need refs:
    • The ends of the first two paragraphs of the State and national section.
    • The end of the first paragraph of the Provincial section
    • The first paragraph of the Cadency section
    • The last paragraph of the Marks of cadency subsection
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • You may want to check your fair use rationales, as well as your use of fair use images. All four of your main images are fair-use (as far as I can tell), with no explanations for why fair use is reasonable for this article. I'm not an images/fair-use expert, or I'd actually help out instead of telling you to do it :)
    • You are missing images for three of the marks of cadency. Is this because you cannot find representational images, or for another reason?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. However, I have some issues with MOS and referencing concerns, which I have detailed above. Also, as noted above, I have not completed a full check of the prose, due to my concerns over the references. If you have any questions, please leave a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article, as a week has passed with very little work being done on it. Most of the issues above still need to be addressed. There has been some work done adding access dates to web references and removing fair-use images, but many of the MOS violations and referencing deficiencies still persist. When these concerns have been addressed, I look forward to seeing this article renominated at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref 37[edit]

How much is this supporting? Because it's at the end of a comma'd bit, it's importance is played down. I'd suggest either duplicating it to the end of the previous sentence (although I'm not generally in support of pointless duplication) or end the sentence at "arms", put the ref there, then rephrase "as are the following:" into a separate sentence, perhaps "The following groups or people are also entitled to do this:". Then you wouldn't need ref 37 twice. - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 11:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this better? → ROUX  11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'm good with that. It's just a case of making everything water-tight. - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Aye, no worries. It was a bit clunky. I anticipate you seeing problems with the cadency section. In my own defence, the CHA has not published any specific variants (if they depart from the norm) of the brisures used, thus the footnote. Unfortunately the CHA has been... less than stellar in responding to questions (I asked about cadency, as well as clarification on how inheritance works for adopted children, as well as how the CHA is going to handle spousal use of arms for LGBT couples), so that's the best I could do. → ROUX  11:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Companions[edit]

Those who have been appointed to the Order of Canada as Companions, or have been raised to the rank of Companion

Why doesn't this simply say Companions of the Order of Canada? Is there a way to become one, other than such appointment or raising? —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. → ROUX  08:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Can I please see this symbol? -- Denelson83 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can, if you scroll down the page to the section about United Empire Loyalists instead of just reading the intro. → ROUX  15:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cadency[edit]

Cadency began in the 13th century; John Writhe may have been responsible for the particular system of marks now used. These two statements are not contradictory. I shall amend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Composition[edit]

As far as the writing is concerned, it must be said that the article is very well written. If nothing, there is very little to say about the grammar and punctuation. The way the article was written should serve as a model for composition on Wikipedia. PDCP (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks. I wrote most of it, with very excellent help from an extremely talented handful of others. → ROUX  23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Loyalist crowns[edit]

Can someone with a little bit of knowledge of heraldry convince Roux that his statement " 'incorrect' in heraldry as long as the object is recognizable " is pure nonsense?

Oak leafs Zomereik blad Quercus robur.jpg Stick from on which multiple leafs are attached: Loyalists civil coronet.svg

Further, Steifer's files are a glitchy mess. I don't know what he did with them, but neither Wikipedia nor Inkscape render them properly. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have quite a lot of knowledge about heraldry, thanks; take a look at who wrote this article. It seems you do not. So long as an object is recognizably described by the blazon, it is correct. That is how heraldry works. If the blazon describes an oak leaf, and the image is recognizably an oak leaf, then barring any modifications to the description (e.g. proper or whatnot) the image is correct. The blazon is definitive; the depiction is not. What part of this is unclear to you? → ROUX  19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. It only vaguely resembles an oak leaf. It's a stick with multiple leafs. Further, you do not address the obvious glitchy file.

As I am looking in your past contributions, it's clear what kind of contributor you are. You have been blocked many times, and now it seems you are mainly trying to continue your tirade against Sodacan, who you tried to accuse of copyright violation. It's really disgusting that you are continuing your ignorant temper tantrum against Sodacan against people who follow his style. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look up heraldic oak leaves and understand that there is wide latitude for artistic licence in heraldic art. Those are recognizable as oak leaves. I didn't address the alleged 'glitchiness' of the file because I see none. My concerns with Sodacan's writing are irrelevant here and I have no idea why you would bring it up, excepting perhaps that you have no idea what you are talking about vis a vis heraldry and are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me to try and get your way. You failed to address my question: what part of 'the blazon is definitive, the depiction is not' is unclear to you? What part of 'as long as the object is recognizable (which it is), it is heraldically correct' is unclear to you? → ROUX  21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not about artistic license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Oak_leaves_in_heraldry You can see tons of different drawing of heraldic oak leafs here, some detailed, some simplified. None of them are compound leafs.] The glitchy file is blatantly obvious: the lines are broken (like OpenOffice Writer renders complex SVG), elements don't match, ... Also, I'm quite sick of your insults. I'm devoting a lot of time in creating heraldry to illustrate Wikipedia, while you seem to have nothing better to do than insult people like Sodacan & I by implying we don't know anything about heraldry. Perhaps you should be checked for copyright violations, as you claim to have written this article. I'm not wasting anymore time on this, I hope someone with some common sense (and a better understanding of heraldry) comes around and has more time to waste than me.Adelbrecht (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
So I just want to be clear: it's perfectly okay for you to insult me, but it's not okay for me to call your knowledge into question? Fuck that with a rusty chainsaw. → ROUX  05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal arms in infobox[edit]

User:Trackratte why do you insist on using an old version of the Canadian royal arms at the head of infobox? Surely it is more logical to display the royal arms as they are currently borne by the Queen of Canada. Zacwill16 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Zac, thanks for starting a conversation, and sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner.
First of all, the depiction that you posted into the infobox is a user generated designed that has been, through consensus over the past few years, removed from use in any of the pages where it was attempted. The current design is not allowed to be used in any page other than the Arms of Canada wiki page due to (in my opinion) an overly restrictive "ruling" by an admin as the Arms are copyrighted. So, an unofficial user generated design is inappropriate, and the 1994 state design is not allowed by the admins, so the logical option was to use a state design that the admins would allow.
Second, due to the topic of the article, it doesn't really matter that the 1957 design is no longer in use by the Government of Canada. The 1957 Arms are still used in RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces rank insignia for example, and its symbolic value is the same. The reason why they are displayed in the infobox is to show the Queen of Canada's place as the "fount of honour" and originator and authority for all Canadian heraldry. I think the 1957 arms due an ample job of that, with the benefit that these Arms (I'm talking about this specific design not the blazon) were personally approved by the Queen as her personal arms. Whereas the user generated design was definitely not.
Third, the use of the use-generated design has caused great upset and offence to some users, which I can see their point. It would be the same issue as publishing a "Canadian Flag" within an encylcopedia with a natural looking 30-point maple leaf instead of the straight-edge 11-point maple leaf. Yes, both renditions would be heraldically correct, but that's not the point, there is only one true Canadian flag, and anything else, heraldically correct or not, could be seen as offensive.
Fourth, if consensus is formed that the majority of editors here do not want the 1957 Arms, then I would suggest using the Arms of the Canadian Heraldic Authority (if not copyrighted), instead of getting into a huge, emotionally charged debate which has already happened regarding the exact image you posted on at least three different occasions/articles that I can remember off-hand.
Hope that helps! trackratte (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)