# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 2007

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2007 - December 2007) - Please Do not edit!

## URGENT WARNING! License has been removed from dozens of coats of arms images!

The license template {{Coatofarms}} was recently deleted on WP:TFD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Template:Coat_of_arms) and it looks like none of us noticed this debate. To make matters perfect, somebody from TFD chose to run though the list of images by bot simply deleting but not replacing the template in question nor informing us. I just noticed the first articles beginning to break down. This will very likely mean that we will have hundreds of coats of arms images deleted or articles using them breaking up very soon. Since {{Symbol}} would cover the same thing in 90% of all cases, it would have been logical to simply apply this but it was not done, for whatever reason. Sorry, this was not the way I hoped to say "happy new year" to this project. If anybody has the time, please start by going through List of English counties' coats of arms but the list of work will be much longer. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As if this wasn't bad enough! Orphanbot is editing away at tons of pages now. E.g. it is trashing the German material which is PD by law. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So, that means that within this week or so, we need to find the images that are affected by this and see what we can do. If the arms are German and PD according to law, tag it as so. But, if we get a coat of arms image deleted, and turns out that we can keep it, we can always just talk to the deleter and if that bears no fruit, send it to DRV. I could easily restore the image myself, but until we have proof about the copyright status, I can't do that off of a whim. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is happening now, not in a week's time. It appears that User:Martinp23 from TFD ran a bot on hundreds of images without informing anybody here. The entire German material is dying now although {{PD-Coa-Germany}} applies. See e.g. the German wikipedia. So is much of the PD material from Nordisk familjebok. I've posted messages to both User:Carnildo and Martinp23 asking the first to calm down Orphanbot and the other to produce a list of the images he has affected. The entire British, Swedish and German material is going down the drain and it won't end there. This project might just as well shut down. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

<!-For what it is worth; this category looks like it contains the images the bot went over more than a week ago. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem indeed, but see Template:Coatofarms -- does this not help? -- Evertype· 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's the one somebody decided to remove from 100s of images without warning anybody here. Does anybody have the least idea about how f*cking frustrating it is to try to race with a f*cking computer? It keeps trashing perfectly good images along with everything else. E.g. English images from 1790 and images legal under German law. It then another bot comes long and tags the affected pages with geo data or whatever so you can't even revert many of them. At the moment, trying to race with the bot about who comes to D first and pick up the pieces of Southern Germany's heraldry. ¤#W&%¤&#¤Q !!! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Needs to go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review it seems. I will help you with this. -- Evertype· 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_3#Template:Coat_of_arms -- Evertype· 11:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"the one somebody decided to remove from 100s of images" - A consensus of editors determined this, and it was far from my decision to remove them. All the proper procedures were followed at the time. Martinp23 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is reason for all involved to calm down

OrphanBot won't delete images - so don't worry about that - it only pluts them in the appropriate category, which is Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006. It'll be at least 5 days (or a week - can't remember) before the images in that category are deleted, so there's plenty of time to look through the category and fix the coat of arms images - rember that OrphanBot only comments out the images on the pages, so it's easy to resurrect them by just removing the comment markers. Thanks, Martinp23 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is pretty outrageous. Your "procedurally correct" actions have caused a lot of hardship to other Wikipedians. Blithely suggesting that they can drop everything for a week to rescue images from what will certainly be autodeletion isn't very helpful. Have you any helpful solutions? -- Evertype· 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith Evertype, and try to remain civil. My message above was to clarify the procedures, as your DRV, the messages on my talk page and some of the feeling here was that OrphanBot was deleting images. I have merely made the situation more clear. On top of what I've said there, OrphanBot leaves message on user-talk pages of uploaders to encourage them to license the image - I not going to go around tagging someone else's uploads when I have no knowledge of the copyright surrounding coats of arms. It may help to look at the TfD, where one !voter makes a note about the validity of PD claims on some of these images - it wouldn't be wise to go and tag them all PD unless you're absolutely sure. My opinion is that the images which were under coatofarms, but now cannot find an appropriate other license, should be deleted - there should be no problem with removing copyvios from Wikipedia, which, as Caranorn (below) and the TfD note, may include some of these images. I'm trying to help however I can - if images are deleted after the 5 days, and it is found later that they could have been properly licensed, I'll be willing to undelete them. Martinp23 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to be told about good faith and civility. I also didn's say that OrphanBot was deleting images. What it's doing is leaving a very large number of images up for eventual deletion by other means. Can you help to find and re-tag the orphanbotted pages? Read the messages below. People are worried that a whole Wikiproject which is all about images is about to be severely damaged. -- Evertype· 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why new creations (redrawn coats of arms) were even under that license tag. They should have been released under dual license or something similar. From what I've seen so far deleting that template was probably correct as much of its use seems to have been abusive. Though obviously not checking whether this Project existed and could help in some way was an unfortunate error. Maybe we should work out guidelines what type of information should be included with heraldic images, what I find most astonishing is that most don't even provide a source (in which publication/document the blasonning can be found, or alternatively an older, reliable image...). For the rest, I don't quite see what anyone but the author of those images can do in this case, we can't just go add licenses to someone else's images.--Caranorn 13:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can only apologise for my ignorance of this project - I'll never forget it after this! The consensus at the TfD was that the template gave the impression it was a valid license (which it wasn't), when it should have been an informational tag. Bear in mind that images without a source can be deleted after 7 days tagged (CSD I4) - hopefully OrphanBot will be picking up cases where no source has been given, so they canbe fixed/deleted. Martinp23 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
They probably have for the same reason that I'm arguing on TFD for keeping the {{Insignia}} template; the image as such might be free of copyrights, but the legal question of avoiding unauthorized use by private individuals remains in several juristictions. Anyway, some images are easy:
• Insignia of a number of national or local governments:

{{PD-Coa-Germany}}, {{PD-Coa-Poland}}, {{PD-Coa-Lithuania}}, {{PD-RU-exempt}}, {{PD-UA-exempt}}, {{PD-BY-exempt}}, {{PD-Coa-Finland}} (we should have had a similar template for Armenia, according to Commons, it is the same case there).

• Check vector-images.com. E.g the former arms of Yerevan was from that website. In case of matches, tag with {{Vector-images.com}}.
• Check for images that are clearly PD-old. I believe I got most of them as well as the official German images.
• Images from Nordisk familjebok. Fred Chess has taken many Swedish images from a c. 100 year old encyclopedia and coloured them. Whenever he does this, he normally writes it on the image description page.
• In some cases, fair use applies if we have an article about a specific coat of arms.: {{Non-free fair use in}}.
I've scraped together c. 200 (mostly German) images but I'll not have the time to examine further images. This experience has completely trashed my schedule. I don't think it will be possible to analyse the vast majority of these images within the timeframe we've been given, so I basically consider the rest lost unless proven wrong. But the big philosophical difference between the (former) "coatofams" template and {{symbol}} / {{logo}} does escape me. All referred to fair use. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{symbol}} seems to completely miss the point about coats of arms and crests (I can't talk about flags as those are beyond my experience). Concerning the blasonning and usage these underly special rules (who may bear them, claim them as their own etc.). Copyright on the other hand is generally held (or waved) by whoever drew the image, it is therefore totally independent from its holder. That is to say concerning wikipedia, one can generally assume that as long as one redraws the coat of arms (preferably from its blazonning), does not pretend the arms themselves are property of wikipedia, the artist or anyone then the actual bearer, uses the image in question for related articles (general armorials, family/community/corporation articles, historic articles...) etc. there is no legal problem. Coats of arms are also not to be compared or confused with logos. In general what a coat of arms placed on wikipedia needs is an adequate license by the artist, nothing more.--Caranorn 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Scandinavian laws, I'd agree 100% here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you back this up please? Flag designs (not just their representations) can definitely have copyright. The spcial usage rules for coats of arms are completely separate from copyright, but their existence doesn't necessarily mean that copyright doesn't exist in the blazon itself. Of course, if we are only using it related articles, as you say, there is no legal problem, but it is right to describe it as fair use, as in {{symbol}}. JPD (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<- Moving to a slightly different topic. The deadline is not "a week from now" as has been said before. See the text on the image description pages: Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after (29 December 2006). Remove this tag when you provide the information.image with unknown copyright as of 2006-12-29 (CSD I4)

This leaves us with a deadline of just two days. We have no choice but to be 100% cynical and concentrate all efforts on the most important images. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Latvian symbols are also PD. I'll create {{PD-Coa-Latvia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Official Estonian insignia are also PD.[1] I'll create {{PD-Coa-Estonia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a trend over most of Eastern Europe: here are templates for Armenia and the Republic of Georgia: {{PD-Coa-Armenia}} / {{PD-Coa-Georgia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a template for Moldova: {{PD-MD-exempt}} (with a redirect from {{PD-Coa-Moldova}}. Romania has similar laws, see commons:Template:PD-RO-Symbol. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a template covering Romanian coats of arms: {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And this one is for the Czech Republic: {{PD-CzechGov}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

## John Brooke-Little

Just a heads up that the article on John Brooke-Little is going to be featured on the main page tomorrow. We should keep a close eye on it to make sure that it is not vandalised or otherwise messed with. --Eva bd 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

## Why is there no infobox for CoA's?

Hello, I am just curious why the articles about coat of arms don't have an infobox while articles about flags do? It would be nice if there was an infobox on every CoA related article.--Crzycheetah 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you expecting in the info box that's not in the article or o be taken from the article if it already exists?Alci12 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The name at the top, of course, then image, date adopted, design (can include what animal is used if any or what colors are used), the text (the one that Coats of arms of Europe has for some coats of arms), and finally the holder (again, the one that Coats of arms of Europe has).--Crzycheetah 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
For a ood number of articles in this area that is basically the article content in whole. So we would simply get left with an infobox and little article text. Alci12 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The infobox for flag articles was started by me, since I am pretty much seeing some of the majory Wiki's using infoboxes on flag articles (mostly from es.wikipedia). Plus, I have seen some of my fellow admins tag articles for having a lack of an infobox. I have no problems if an infobox exists for the arms. I would not mind trying it out, if it doesn't work, then oh well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that an infobox makes articles look professional, whatever that means. Any article without an infobox is a stub for me.--Crzycheetah 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, lets get started. I like the suggestions put up by you, since that is pretty much putting the arms in brief. Though some elements that you ask you, such as holder of the arms, will be hard to find out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Poland color dispute

There's currently a dispute at Flag of Poland about whether or not the color shown on the image is white. The current image takes the "official white" and converts it to RGB, which shows up as grey. I don't think that some of the people understand that the color on a computer image cannot always be taken directly from the ink specifications, as they are completely different methods of displaying colors. --Ibagli (Talk) 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate was settled at the Wikimedia Commons, I would suggest of taking the dispute there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of South Africa

Flag of South Africa has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. sJeffpw 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heraldic Authority has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Lithuania

Just a warning for those that may not know that our Flag of Lithuania is being featured on the main page today. It would be good to watch out for vandals today.--Eva bd 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

## Arms of George IV of the United Kingdom

George IV's article is currently subject to Featured article review and a request has been made to provide a citation for: George IV of the United Kingdom#Arms. Can anyone here help out by adding a single reference? Thanks. DrKiernan 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've added the two relevant London Gazette entries. I hope I've cited the Gazette correctly; if not, feel free to correct it. talkGiler S 12:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

## Northern Ireland

Please see Talk:Northern Ireland regarding the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland in the infobox. The question is whether the Ulster Banner should be used, the Union Flag, or no flags at all. Astrotrain 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

## Dulcert's map

Map of Angelino Dulcert

Just a notice that I have managed to download from Gallica and upload to Commons the map of Angelino Dulcert, which is very interesting as a source of some of the oldest flag drawings. The oldest drawing of a flag of Serbia could be found on the map (which I added to the article), and there are other interesting flags - for example what is that thing on the flag of Poland? I can't find anything about it articles on flag or coat of arms of Poland. Nikola 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Portugal/archive1

I've recently expanded the article Flag of Portugal and put it for peer review. If you would like to address comments and suggestions, please follow the link on the title. Thanks! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

## Bringing order to Orders

This questions is at least moderately related to heraldry in its broadest sense, so I thought I'd post it here. As members of this project are possibly aware, the family of Orders of St John is confusing. There is a good deal of chaos in their organization on Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring a proposal here (originally proposed by User:Boven who now seems to be inactive). I'd like to see the articles written and organized thusly:

• Order of Malta(the catholic order with extended history from the beginnings to present)
The Four Main Protestant Orders
The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as [[Category:St John Orders]] or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?--Eva bd 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• In an effort to keep the discussion in one place, how about we do all the discussing here.--Eva bd 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

## Can someone double-check a discription of a Guidon for me?

Hi, I was hoping someone could look over the discription of a regimental guidon I just added to an article HERE, and revise it as needed. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Quebec

Hi there. A comment has just been placed here with regard to the accuracy of the colors currently used on Image:Flag of Quebec.svg, as the flag is currently on the Main Page, and a discussion to the same effect has been going on here for a while, with little contribution. I would appreciate it if any members of this project more knowledgeable on the matter could weigh in. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dr pda for feedback. A new version with corrected colors is now available at Image:Drapeau du Québec.svg. Fvasconcellos 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put the corrected colours on the main page. Lexicon (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Fvasconcellos 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now I don't know if it's right. Check out this. There's also this, which seems to have all specifications aside from colour. Lexicon (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, the eps file here does seem to have a lighter blue when you open it. Lexicon (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I honestly don't know what to make of that. Fvasconcellos 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have recorrected the colours to exactly match those of the EPS file from the government of Quebec. I think that would have to be totally correct. Lexicon (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) I hope so :) Confusingly, they look exactly the same on my monitor... Fvasconcellos 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I probably hadn't corrected the Wikipedia version yet (I corrected the Commons before remembering that it was uploaded to Wikipedia for protection sake). Try now. Lexicon (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That looks about right now (I downloaded and checked on Inkscape, now there's a difference) Phew. Fvasconcellos 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Cantabria

Hi, I just translated Flag of Cantabria from the Spanish wikipedia, as Cantabria is the current Spanish Translation of the week. Maybe you should give it a look, see if you can improve it, or maybe standardize it with other flag articles. Cheers. --Wafry 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Comments requested re WP:FPC/Emblem of the Papacy

Hello, this coat of arms is currently up for featured picture status and we would like to get some expert input on the accuracy of the design. This is not a solicitation to vote in either way in the discussion, although editors are always at liberty to offer their opinions on the artistic merit of the picture as well. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bumping this down because the nomination is currently suspended for lack of expert input. Please have a look at it. Thanks ! trialsanderrors 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

## Broader question about flag articles raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of ethnic groups

Dhartung has raised an interesting point about whether this article should be written in the format currently used (a gallery style) or instead should link to individual articles about the flags. That is apparently the preferred approach Wikipedia-wide at this point. This raises broader questions about many other flag articles so I though I would flag this AfD here. --A. B. (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we have too many galleries on Wikipedia for flags. The Wikimedia Commons was built for that purpose, so I think we should try to transwiki the gallery or just make it an article category. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I actually think the opposite: I think we have too many long image galleries, which should be split up. Would not readers find a larger set of smaller galleries, organized around meaningful categories, more useful? And some of the large galleries certainly could use some judicious pruning so that, for example, multiple versions of a single flag are represented only by the best example (together with a "see also" link to where one can find variants). And I agree that flags in a gallery ought to have an associated linked article, so that they don't exist merely as "a flag in a gallery". What I don't understand is the idea I've seen advanced elsewhere that lists of flags are encyclopedic, galleries of flags are not. Printed encylopedias are the other way around. And I for one find articles like List of flags by color pretty uninformative; even for more meaningful categories, like flags depicting animals, would be rendered much less useful and interesting by turning them into text-only lists. (I'll also note that sometimes articles called Lists are de facto galleries; e.g., List of Chinese flags — are these also to be seen as "unencyclopedic" and suitable only for the Commons? --ScottMainwaring 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just voted for deletion as a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status (not necessarily local) so in general ethnic groups don't have flags.--Caranorn 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some sort of legal status may be considered nessary to bear arms, Caranorn, but flags are another matter altogether. JPD (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status
Okay, I'd better tell my cousin the South lost. --Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
But that flag once had legal status (assuming you mean one of the Confederate Flags, probably the battle flag). Not to mention that variants have probably been used by other organizations. On the other hand it's not a supposed flag of an ethnic group.--Caranorn 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you. A country can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A province can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A city can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A corporation can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. I can have a flag, since I am a legal entity (and you can actually get a legal flag granted in Canada, where I live, along with a granting of arms). My family, however, cannot have a flag, because we are not a legal entity. My ethnic group (a bunch of families) cannot have a flag, because we are not a legal entity. Is that what you are claiming? Lexicon (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much yes. Note that in Canada for example I wouldn't be astonished if the First Nations, or even some of the First Nations, but then these are legally recognized bodies...--Caranorn 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting opinion, but do you have a attributable source to back up the "if it doesn't refer to a legal entity, it isn't a flag" theory? --ScottMainwaring 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually you confuse something, you need a source to include material in a wikipedia article, not the other way round. So how about a source to demonstrate that an ethnic group, regardless of legal status, can have a flag. And yes, I'm not sure to be able to find a source to prove my point which is largely based on common sense and principles from vexillology's predecessor "science" heraldry.--Caranorn 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm confused, but I thought that we were discussing the "broader issue" raised by the AfD debate over ethnic flags, namely the idea that "a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status". At least, I'd like to put to the side the specific questions of ethnic groups' legal status, how one might attribute flags to them, etc., to focus on this broader question. My request for a source was posed in this light, and (somewhat) thinking ahead to improving the Flag article, which doesn't currently do a good job of covering these interesting questions about the intersections of legality and flag usage.
I think its important to distinguish between the legal status of a flag, the entity that the flag represents, and the legal status of that entity. For example, the U.S. Congress could pass a resolution defining a flag that represents human-caused global warming; alternatively such a flag could arise informally from use by grassroots groups and individuals without any legal standing at all. And regardless of the legal standing of the idea that humans are causing global warming, these both would be flags, wouldn't they?
Using such distinctions, it seems to me that flags can and do represent (legally or informally) anything (legally defined or not), and that the minimal criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia ought to consist of demonstrating that notability of a flag in terms of attributable significance, not solely its legal status. The rules of Heraldry may disagree and require stricter criteria for what "counts" as a coat of arms, but as JPD notes above, flags don't necessarily fall under its jurisdiction. --ScottMainwaring 16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In this light, what are your comments on e.g. Flag of Aztlán? Should it be named Colored bits of cloth of Aztlán? Do we need to demonstrate that a 501(c)3 has made it an official flag to use the name "flag"? Who defines this definition of flag you're using? The American Heritage Dictionary primary definition is A piece of cloth, usually rectangular, of distinctive color and design, used as a symbol, standard, signal, or emblem. How does that not apply, in your thinking? (Their definition does not use the word country or nation anywhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe your example is quite clear. The first sentence in that article reads: The flag of Aztlán is an unofficial flag used by Chicano nationalists in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 1) it's unofficial, 2) it's the flag of a political movement. What it is not is also clear, it's not a flag of an ethnic group. Note how I never used the term country or nation either as flags are certainly not limited to such.--Caranorn 15:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Unofficial flags are still flags, and while we should not at all imply that they are official, they are often worth documenting. I don't quite understand the issues surrounding the example given, but often political movements use flags which purport to represent a proposed state or an ethnic group instead of or as well as flags of their movement. Such a flag could be a flag of an ethnic group, even in cases where it would be unfair to call it the flag of that group. More than that, there are definitely cases where a flag intending to represent an ethnic group is extremely widely accepted and used, and it is valid to call it the flag of that group. In some cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal Flag, the flag may even end up with government recognition as the flag of that group, even though the group is not a legal entity. JPD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

## Coat of arms of Spain

I recently completed an expansion of Coat of arms of Spain, which might need an assessment rating. Thanks. --Maurice27 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reassessed it and added a few comments. Welcome to WP:HV. Valentinian T / C 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Valentinian. I will make the changes ASAP. --Maurice27 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Spain

I recently completed an expansion of Flag of Spain, which might need an assessment rating. Thanks. --Maurice27 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

## Coat of arms of Amsterdam

Could someone with specialist knowledge of heraldry check the new article Coat of arms of Amsterdam on the correct use of heraldic terms? – Ilse@ 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

## Coat of arms of Tunisia

Dear members of the project,
The coat of arms shown in this article never existed under this form. You can find more explanations in the French article which includes links to the correspondant Tunisian laws and decrees. The two only existing version were this one between 1956 and 1963 and this one since 1963. Regards Moumou82 12:30 CET, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

## Spanish heraldry

I recently completed an expansion of Spanish heraldry, which might need an assessment rating. Thanks. --Maurice27 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

## Saltire and BDSM Sex

I'm leaving this note on the heraldry portal board, hoping some of you folks with good sense and good taste will see to it that the totally inappropriate sexual content in the Saltire article is removed to its own article. This is just plain goofy; there is no connection between the heraldic saltire and the BDSM usage except the shape. One is a heraldic symbol, the other is a sexual instrument, and they don't belong in the same article.

If I knew how to remove the material and create a disambiguation page, I would, but that's beyond my wikicapicity. I see from the Saltire history page that someone else has already tried to do what I've suggested but gotten repeatedly reverted.

Please, guys: I'm not against anyone's having BDSM sex if they want to, but this is utterly ridiculous. Let's wise up here and make separate articles so readers find what they expect and need, either way. Textorus 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Prussia

Given Image:Flag of Preussen 1701-1918.jpg is used quite extensively around Wikipedia, shouldn't a SVG or at least a PNG version be made available? Centy 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be a PNG, at least. However, both images never identified the original source of the image. However, I think Mr. Olle allowed his work to be on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed he did - see this declaration on the German Wikipedia - 52 Pickup 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I will be AFK for some time, so yall can make a PNG image and attach the terms he stated onto the image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

## Reference desk question about flag protocol

Please, help with this question. A.Z. 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

## Flag list policy debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags

Discussion about the format and content of this page has implications for flag lists on Wikipedia in general, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --ScottMainwaring 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

## Preference in Naming Convention?

Does this project have a naming convention or conventions for articles within its scope? I recently reviewed an article Munich Coat of Arms that I believe would be more appropriately named "Coat of arms of Munich". I work primarily with plant related articles and we have decided for the sake of consistency that all articles have scientific, rather than common names, for example. If there is no standard, perhaps you should consider creating one. If there is, please move the article accordingly. Thanks very much! (P.S. I don't think I had the slightest clue about heraldry before I started using Wikipedia. Keep it up!) Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

## Vexillological symbols in articles

Hi there. I just saw the Flag of Portugal article was today's featured article; congratulations! I was a little confused by the use of symbols in the article, which doesn't explain what the symbols mean. Eventually I found their meanings at flag terminology. It might be a good idea to have some standard link or template to explain to non-experts where to find this information. Just a suggestion. Cmprince 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've recently reworked the {{FIAV}} template so the information about that symbol appears if you place your pointer over it. Other wikis supplement this with a small link next to every image that points to their flag terminology article (e.g. see nl:Vlag van Polen) - I did include this feature but it is currently disabled. - 52 Pickup 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any preferred style for the leaders of flag articles? Looking at just the featured articles, we have:

• The national flag of country
• The flag of country
• The current national flag of country
• The National Flag of country
• The National flag of country

(All the country names have been replaced with "country", and, in the last one, "regional" has been replaced with "national" so that all the methods are compared fairly.)

There are also some non-featured ones with national flag of country. Shouldn't there be a consistent style here? My preference would be for flag of country or national flag of country. --Islomaniac 973 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no preferred style that I personally go with (unless there is a style I keep on using by accident). But, it would at least good to bold "flag of country" and link the name of the country. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The manual of style says not to have links in the bolded title. JPD (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's good to get the country in as early as possible. Perhaps "the flag of country is the national flag of country ...", although that is overly wordy. --Islomaniac 973 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Sound a bit redundant IMHO. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend "The national flag of country", or, if the WP:MOS is to be rigidly adhered to (I don't think it has to be — it's a guideline, not a policy), "The national flag of country". But only for countries which don't distinguish between civil, state, war versions of their national flag. For countries that do make such distinctions, shouldn't these be mentioned up front? E.g., for Flag of Japan, I think lead sentence should start "The civil and state flag and ensign of Japan...". The current phrasing found there is misleading, as it suggests Japan has only one national flag; actually, it has three: the aforementioned civil/state flag/ensign; a war flag; and a naval ensign. All represent Japan, each in its appropriate context. "National flag" is an ambiguous term (see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox National flag), and I think readers would be well-served by some clarity in the introductions to these articles. --ScottMainwaring 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the MOS recommends both that the title be bolded in the first sentence, and that it shouldn't include links. It is only a guideline, but I think it is a good guideline that should be followed unless it is too unwieldy. As for the issue of usage, yes it should be made clear in the intro, but not necessarily in the very first sentence/clause. The exact wording will very much depend on the particular case - several countries that do have more than one national flag in the broader sense do actually have one version named by law as "the national flag". JPD (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Balochistan

Hi flag lovers. ive noticed there is no article on, or any images of, the flag of Balochistan/flag of the Balochi people. It is a very large, not insignificant region, so needs some mention of its flag. They certainly have one, as a google image search will show. Now i know i could do it myself, but im unsure of the copyright status of the online images, and i wouldnt like to create anything that is against your standard procedure, and well im tired and not sure if i can be bothered. Here is a link to the Flags of the World entry on it for starters[2] Willy turner 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can make the flag image with no problems, since I don't think there is a copyright issue with them. As for an article, sure, you can make it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

## Armigers

Have we a category for armigers? A colleague of mine who has a Wikipedia article was recently granted arms. -- Evertype· 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We now have a Category:Armigers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Armigers The way I would propose to use this is to add it to articles which show the arms or specify the blazon. -- Evertype· 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this category was short-lived. I found out today it was deleted on 21 May. The discussion is at [3]. I have to say, this is irritating because populating the category took rather a lot of time, and despite the dismissive tone of the discussion, it was not unverifiable. I only added people to the category whose arms were actually shown on their page. I didn't know that the category was up for deletion, and the nominator did not, for instance, contact me as the category's creator. So my question to memebers of this WikiProject is: Should there be a Category for Armigers? -- Evertype· 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You could ask that the deletion ber overturned at Deletion Review, the above suggests a possible case. DES (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

## Inland ensign?

I have a question about the correct use of the FIAV vexillological symbols for flag use. If a flag is used as an ensign only on inland waterways, then what symbol should I use? Does inland navigation qualify as "land use" or "sea use"? Thanks — Kpalion(talk) 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

## Article Gallery of sovereign-state flags

Is it intended that this article show sovereign-state state flags or sovereign-state civil flags: until that is decided, it cannot be said to be accurate. I am aware that in the case of Ecuador the two are not the same: I suspect that those with greater interest than I in matters vexillilogical will be able to cite others. Kevin McE 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

## NAVA meeting flags

We got authorization from NAVA to use the meeting flags, past and present, on Wikipedia. You can use the license at Image:Flag of NAVA.svg on the images. It would be best to take the images from NAVA's website. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

## Valencian flag dispute

Hi all,

I recently created a start/stub article about the Flag of Valencia, using as sources and references the SEV (Spanish Vexillological Society) website, pictures and some decrees from the Valencian Community. Another user has engaged in an edit and revert war about the proportions of the flag. His sources and explanations seem to me unencyclopedic and with a complete lack of knowledge in vexillological matters and terminology.

For this reason I'm asking for willing members of this wikiproject to take a look at the stub Flag of Valencia, its sources, and to the arguments expressed by both of us in the talk-page Talk:Flag of Valencia in order to have some second opinions from proved connoisseur in vexillological matters. Thanks. --Maurice27 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My hunch would be to stick to the relevant law. FOTW describes the proportions as unspecified but that 2:3 would be the intention of the relevant law. I don't speak any Romance languages, so I'll stick to FOTW.[4] If (as it appears) 1:2 is a more traditional form in common use, my personal take would be to write something along the lines of "2:3 (law of 19xx), 1:2 (traditional, also commonly used)" in the infobox and add a footnote something like this: "Law no. XYZ issued by XYZ of 19xx specifies the proportions as ... . Proportions of 1:2 have been used since ... and remain in common usage." Just my 2 cents, but it all depends on the exact wording of the relevant law. Valentinian T / C 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Valencian Statute (the organic autonomous community law) says ([5]):

• Artículo 5

Uno. La tradicional señera de la Comunidad Valenciana está compuesta por cuatro barras rojas sobre fondo amarillo, coronadas sobre franja azul junto al asta

• Article 5

Point One. The traditional Senyera of the Valencian community is composed by four red bars over a yellow backgroud, crowned over blue strip next to the hoist.

Therefore, I understand that the current flag of valencia has to be of the same proportions as all the other used or proposed by the Valencian Government since 1979 (see: [6]).

--Maurice27 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

## Northern Ireland

Due to an argument over which flag to have at the top of the page, there is currently no flag. There is currently a debate taking place about which flag or flags if any to include. I feel flag experts like yourselves should get involved in this discussion, and edit the article as you feel appropriate. The question is, what is most correct - The Union Flag, the Ulster Banner, or neither? The debate currently taking place is talking about irrelevent issues like the fact some Northern Irish people dont like one of the options. Please contribute to the discussion on the Northern Ireland talk page; specifically giving input on the Legal aspects of which flag is most appropriate. Thank you in advance. Willy turner

## Coat of arms of the Holy See (positioning of the cord?)

If anybody has knowledge about the specifics of the coat of arms of the Holy See, please help getting the details right on this image replacement request on WP:GL. In particular, it seems like we need to know if the cord should be tied around the keys or not. As far as I can tell, the blazon does not state this, and some of the images shown on FOTW seem to suggest otherwise, in particular the image of the arms a province near Avignon. Any help would be great. Valentinian T / C 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Vatacan shows two different images (one of them from FOTW and the flag from a FOTW member). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of those have the keys backwards don't they (EG. That's the Vatican CoA and not the HS's)? 68.39.174.238 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the same page I cited, it is the arms for both the HS and the Vatican. I noticed the Pope's arms have the keys crossed. I am also confused. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of the Republic of China FAR

Flag of the Republic of China has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

## image deletionists

Folks, will someone please weigh in at Talk:Coats of arms of Asia, and also help improve the article? How do you folks deal with image deletionists? Chris 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I side with Durin here; on a sidebar note, most of the images of these arms will be deleted from the Commons. The reason is that the source of the images, Vector Images.com, is no longer considered free enough to use on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

## Maritime flags gallery

I created a Commons gallery for maritime flags at commons:Maritime flags. I should be an improvement of the current one at gallery of maritime flags: first, it contains more vexillogical symbols. Second, I have split off the section for Flags with nautical designs to its own gallery at commons:Flags with nautical designs, which IMHO makes more sense. Please check for accuracy! --Himasaram 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Hong Kong FAR

Flag of Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## College of Dracology

Hey all! I just re-created this article adding some new sources. It was AfD-ed a couple months ago because people said it was not notable. If you have any other information to add, please do. Also, if you want to check out their Dragonlore journal, you can on their website. Thanks.--Eva bd 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

## Arms of Letchworth UDC, Letchworth Town Council, Letchworth GC Corporation, Letchworth Heritage Foundation, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all

I'm just leaving a note here in case anyone was interested in helping improve our coverage of a small heraldic battle being played out in North Hertfordshire. Two corporate bodies are arguing over who has the right to the coat of arms granted to a now-defunct local government authority. I partially reverted content added by an anon which came down heavily on one side, and left a note at Talk:Letchworth#The_coat_of_arms explaining why I had done so. If I have made any mistakes about my understanding of the laws of heraldry here, I'd appreciate someone adding some clarification. Marnanel 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of Europe

I'd like the opinion of the project on the correct name for this article. It was "European flag" and has been changed to "Flag of Europe" as that is the formation of other pages. However that position isn't exactly official. I'd like to see a change to Flag of the European Union, as that is the org. most associated with it. However it was created and still used by the Council of Europe and seen as a flag for Europe as a whole. I'd be interested to hear your opinions as you deal with flags the most, of course. If you have thoughts on this, please post them here. Thanks. - J Logan t: 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

## Similar flags and how to prevent mixups

The writer, who is quite good with flags, momentarily thought that the Vanuatu flag was the South African flag. See below, they have similarities.

- Vanuatu

- South Africa

Conferences or sports events sometimes display the wrong flag, or play wrong national anthem, confusing say Austria with Australia.

This could be basis for new article?

Recent story. Some fishing poachers from Vietnam hoped to disquise themselves by displaying Malaysia flag. Unfortunately they displayed it upside down and were easily noticed. (or visa versa). Fishy Story

- Malaysia - do not have upside down flag icon.

- Indonesia

- Indonesia upside down (.pl)

### Name for article on flag mixups

Suggestions needed: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabletop (talkcontribs) 00:01:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Tabletop 11:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a page has already been created: Gallery of confusable flags, part of the Gallery of flags by design. Not that it couldn't be improved, perhaps by a discussion of incidents of actual flag confusion such as you've mentioned. As it stands, it lists all sorts of potential flag confusions, though where to draw the line and say "those two couldn't be confused!" is a difficult judgment. --ScottMainwaring 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tabletop 12:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

## Becoming a member of this Wikiproject?

Does one

• first post a request to join in the talk page?
• post a sample contribution on the talk page as initiation?
• just add one's hame anywhere on the list of members on the project page?
• just add one's name to the bottom of the list of members?
• just add one's name in alphabetical order on the list of members?

Just asking! Tabletop 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You just add your name to the list of members, and that's it. I think the table used to be in alphabetical order, but it seems like it needs a little house cleaning at the moment. And welcome to WP:HV. Valentinian T / C 15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

## Featured picture candidates

I just nominated a flag at Featured picture candidates .Bewareofdog 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

## Suggested new article: Proper (heraldry)

Hi there, hopefully I've chosen a good place to bring this up... I was looking at the Coat of arms of Fiji article the other day, where it described two warriors and an outrigger canoe as "all proper". After furrowing my brow in a vain attempt to understand the situation, I tried looking around Wikipedia to figure out what "proper" meant in this context. I only managed to find a very brief mention of "proper", in passing, in the heraldry article. Judging by this site (where I finally got my question answered), "proper" is an important enough term to merit an article (or at least its own section in another article, with Proper (heraldry) being a redirect to it). I was about to create a stub for Proper (Heraldry), but wasn't quite Bold enough, so I decided to put it before a crowd who's in a better position to decide than I am. Cheers! --Fried Gold 17:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a section about "proper" on the article for Tincture (heraldry). --EncycloPetey 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added a link to that section from the proper disambiguation page. --Fried Gold 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

## Lauffen am Neckar

Could someone with a knowledge of terminology pse look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauffen. A description of the coat of arms of the town has been translated from the German. The translated description is correct in lay terms but, in order for the entry to be assessed to a Class B, the description needs to be redrafted. Assistance would be greatly appreciated.Mikeo1938 08:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

## "National flags inspired by the flag of Turkey"

The title of that article should be changed. There is no evidence that any or all of the flags listed therein were inspired by the Turkish flag ! The fact that they also bear the star and crescent symbol, or variations thereof, does not signify by itself an "inspiration". The star and crescent is a universal symbol of the islamic faith, and not exclusively of a Turkic identity or the Turkish republic. No modern flag which bears, for example, the symbol of the cross can claim to be the "inspiration" for Western flags. (To drive this point home, it would be evidently arbitrary to ascribe any notion of "inspiration from the Turkish flag" to the creators of the flag of the republic of Terengganu or the state of South Carolina.) I move to change the title to something more accurate such as Flags similar to the flag of Turkey, as is, for example, the eponymous chapter in the entry Flags of the United States. (Tellingly, there is no claim in the relevant Wiki entry that every flag with stars and/or stripes on it has been inspired by the U.S. flag! They are all simply similar -- with a few, strictly documented exceptions.) The Gnome 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

## Reference needed

I need help trying to find a reference for coats of arms of states of the Holy Roman Empire for the article Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire. So far, I've found an old book of princes' coats of arms, but it doesn't help me much. It has nice pictures, but it doesn't say what states are represented by which set of arms. What I would like is something that lists the arms of the states themselves. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

## Are flag lists in "gallery" format "encyclopedic"?

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallery_of_flags_with_crosses. Members of this project with opinions one way or the other on what kind of flag articles are to be allowed on Wikipedia may have an interest in this debate. --ScottMainwaring 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

## Move request

The article Heraldry of Berne discusses the city's coat of arms. It also mentions the flag of Berne which, like all Swiss flags, is just the CoA presented as a square. Therefore, I believe this page should be renamed to Coat of arms of Berne, just like all other such articles. Unfortunately, there is a redirect in place preventing me from making the move. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks. - 52 Pickup (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

## Project CoA

Red chief on black
Party per fess

I think that I may have missed the adoption of a coat of arms by the project. Did we vote on this?--Eva bd 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No. There wasn't one, so I was BOLD, and I made one. Let me know if you have any feedback. Would you like to discuss it? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best to discuss it as a project. But that's just me...--Eva bd 14:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I much preferred the old one, with the lion and puzzle piece.--Bedford (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A little background - Bedford's talking about a previous version of the same image file. I've re-uploaded it as a new file so we can compare it. I like it too. My problem with it is that the red chief on a black field breaks the rule of tincture. The other thing we can do is use party per fess instead of a chief, which technically obeys the rule of tincture, because a chief is considered a charge, but a parted field is not. I think it's important that we follow the rule. It's not normally a big deal, but we're talking about arms of a heraldry project. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't much like any of the three options. Of the two new ones, I prefer the per fess one (not for the sake of the tincture rule, but because the charges seem to fill the space better). I like both of those better than the st george one. Any other options?--Eva bd 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mainly what I was going for is a combination of symbols from Wikipedia and England (because it's English Wikipedia). The lion and the cross of St. George are the two most recognizable symbols of England. What would you like to see? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the one with the lion passant, but I think the tilted puzzle piece gives it an unheraldic look. Could it be replaced with a non-tilted piece, like this one? — Kpalion(talk) 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Done I just rotated the one that's on there. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• I dislike the St. George's cross version. Of the two lion versions, I prefer the second for use of space, but am not overly enthusiastic. Being the English Wiki doesn't mean being tied to one English-speaking country; what about just [en]? Gimmetrow 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Having the W in there is bad enough. We should be able to say what we want to say without using words or abbreviations. There's also a reason the language is not called American. Most native speakers of English are American, but the language originated in England, a fact that I, as an American, am comfortable with. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Then we should have a lion and a fleur-de-lys? Gimmetrow 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What would the fleur-de-lis represent? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic, but it would represent the influence of Old French on the development of English, and relfect the coat of arms of England when the language was forming. Gimmetrow 06:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to point out 3 things:
1. English is a West Germanic language originating in England.
2. The French quarterings in the early English coat of arms represented France.
3. The Lion of England was originally a symbol of Normandy, so it can take what you say into account.
I don't know whether or not you're still being sarcastic (it's hard to discern tone of voice in written words), so I thought it was best to assume that you were being serious. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I still say we should not be tied to any particular present-day English-speaking country. But if you want to be tied to one due to historical origins, then it ought to be historically accurate. Gimmetrow 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
English originated in England. It wasn't spoken anywhere else. What's not accurate about that? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Shield on a flag

Option 4 - Shield on a flag -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My choice for the project arms. It took the design people liked from above, but with some modifications to the puzzle piece. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think I would like it that way, but I was wrong. It looks good. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the puzzle piece, from now looking at it, needs to be rotated just a bit. However, I am not sure what yall feel about it and I don't have much time in the next two weeks to work on the image a lot, so one of yall can do it for me. But, I am glad the overall design is liked by at least one other. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• I could live with the per fess if the puzzle piece had the W removed. The allusion to the Wikipedia is just as strong without. Also...could we get rid of the guardant attitude of the lion. It would be make me less queasy about using a symbol that is strictly controlled in England.--Eva bd 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• I saw another icon being used now; I humbly ask that we don't have the merry go round of image icons until we settle on one. Anyways, I did remove the W from the puzzle piece in my design, but I am not sure if I can find a lion that is tame. Who knows, we might need to split the arms in half, so where the right side is black and the left is red. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Eva, do you mean just passant like this? I think I can agree to that. I don't like the new one at all with the W on the red background. The ribbon around the shield looks too much like an order of chivalry, and it has characteristics more in line with a logo than a coat of arms. I'd like to make a full achievement version once we agree on a shield. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"3D shield" with text

Do you like the "3D effect" of the shield? If you think at least that worked, please propose what can be done to improve that image. Why would a W on a shield be unpopular? Would another colour than red be better? (e.g. metal/silver) I chose the circe around the shield because it is a compact way of including some text around a shield, but if you know of a better solution, it would be great. If you hate every aspect of the current image, just reinsert the english lion. But isn't "English lions = English language" a far-fetched rationale? I don't like references to spesific countries. - ${\displaystyle \mathrm {S} }$. ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Solberg} }$ ${\displaystyle \mathrm {J} }$. 09:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed earlier people have said we do not need the W at all. Maybe we can just kill any references to the English language, except just to have text in English (if at all). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Gold puzzle piece on red
I think there's been enough resistance to the lion that I'd like to give up on it. That leaves just candidate 4 and the new one to the right. Solberg, I'm in love with your linear gradient. It makes everything else on this page look horrible. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If we can put a charge of a flag like object in the middle of the golden puzzle piece, you got yourself a deal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Puzzle piece charged with a flag
Done to the left as candidate 8. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I love the Gules a puzzle piece Or. It's the best proposal so far, simple and self-evident. I don't think a full achievement is a good idea though. The arms would normally appear in little boxes on talk pages, so we need a design that is well visible in small resolutions. Like the one on the right. — Kpalion(talk) 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, there are two minor modifications I would suggest. Could the charge be made a little bigger and perhaps rotated by 180° so that it fills the escutcheon better? — Kpalion(talk) 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Rotated and enlarged. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Candidate 8 full achievement
What I was thinking was two versions - one with just the shield for templates, and a full achievement version for the project page. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The red banner should not be included. It is a century-old political symbol of the Socialist movement. Valentinian T / C 10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that too. Is blue a neutral color? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is less established than the red counterpart, but in some countries (including my own) blue is the colour of the Liberal movement. In a U.S. context, we have the blue states/red states divide. Valentinian T / C 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Candidate 8 full achievement looks too extravagant. - ${\displaystyle \mathrm {S} }$. ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Solberg} }$ ${\displaystyle \mathrm {J} }$. 10:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the blue flag will be okay, because we're using a red shield. The combination red shield/red flag looks pretty communist. I'd like to use a flag with a plain color. The only other choices after blue are purple, black, and green. Green is the national flag of Libya, black is ominous, and I don't think anybody will agree to purple. Otherwise, if somebody wants to design a flag for us, we can put that in instead. As for the full achievement image - we can take some ribbons out and change the crest, but I don't want it to look too revisionist. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the combination Red/gold/blue doesn't look very good. - ${\displaystyle \mathrm {S} }$. ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Solberg} }$ ${\displaystyle \mathrm {J} }$. 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How about making the shield gold, puzzle piece red and the flag gold? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gold-red-gold
I tried to make a gold version of Solberg's shield, but I failed miserably. I did a gold version. I'm not sure how well I did with the shield. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Full
Full achievement. I cut about half the mantle out. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 11:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This one works for me. Though we can still use simply the shield. Now...we just need to devise a heraldic badge to pin in our lapels...--Eva bd 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the gold/red/gold. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It rocks. When will we start using it? — Kpalion(talk) 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a completely different suggestion. How do you like it?--Thw1309 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The version presented by Thw1309 has elements that users wanted to avoid before, such as symbols denoting to the English. Also, with the use of the Wikipedia logo, we are getting into trademark issues which, I think, is easily avoided by the designs we already have on the templates and the main page of the project. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the coat of arms to avoid any trademark problems, but you should know, that there seems to be a permission, to use the Wikipedia Symbol within the Wikipedia projects. My image was not deleted from Commons but a special copyright tag about the symbols of Wikimedia added. --Thw1309 (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

### Arbitrary section break

• The design with the puzzle piece and flag is good. Are we tied to the gold-red-gold color scheme? Gimmetrow 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not tied to it, but if we want a flag with a single color, yellow is about the only one that doesn't represent something that we don't want to represent. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

## Heraldic flags

I have expanded Heraldic standard, which focused predominantly on Scottish practice. Now I wonder if the various types of flags should be moved to a new survey article Heraldic flag with links to a separate detailed article on Heraldic standard? I am happy to do the work, but I don't want to make that move without consulting others, since I am new to this project.

We also need to add continental practice.

- PKM 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:I. Pankonin had made the move; I will cleanup per comments at Talk:Heraldic flag. - PKM 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

## Some identifications requested

For example, below the griffins this includes something like cross keys, but they aren't keys, so just what are they? - JM

Not exactly heraldry and vexillology, but I suspect that someone from this project could do a better job than I of identifying some of the elements in the terracotta of Seattle's former Crystal Pool. See Commons:Category:Crystal Pool (Seattle). No need to get back to me, just edit the descriptions accordingly on Commons. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like torches to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

## Flag of the Austrian Empire

Someone has been replacing the flag of the Austrian Empire, and so far no sources supporting these changes has been presented by the editor. There has also been a large number of edits to articles on battles where the flagicon template in the infobox has been substituted with a direct link to the new image like in Battle of Paris (1814). If the changes are indeed correct, wouldn't it be better to implement this with an appropriate Country data template and retain flagicon over the direct link? Is there someone that can look in to the edits? -- Domino theory (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

An imperial or royal banner of arms is not the same thing as a national flag and should not be labeled as such. As for flag icons, I'm generally not in favor of them, but I would particularly advise not to use any banners or standrads as flag icons for periods before the adoption of a national flag. — Kpalion(talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This someone was right to replace the flag, because this was not the flag of the Austrian empire. Until 1806, an Austrian emperor did not exist. There only was the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". In the last centuries of it's existence, usually, the emperor was the head of the house of Habsburg, the rulers of Austria. When the empire ceased to exist, the former emperor now called himself emperor of Austria. This empire had a new flag, while the old coat of arms/flag since 1813 was used by the German confederation, where Austria was a member too. The Austrian state flag looked like the banner without the border. The national Flag was this . Therefore the new flag could be better, but the original flag was wrong.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

## Cabossed = Kibosh?

Hello, friends. I came across the article cabossed today via the wonders of the Random Article button, and it occurs to me that it sounds a lot like kibosh, as in "to put the kibosh on someone/something". And, it has a fairly similar meaning, that is, to cut off the head of a creature. Coincidence? Etymological relations? Guesses? Thoughts? Domo. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

## "Crest" used as a term of art

There are a couple of articles about Australian schools which refer to a device the school uses as a crest. (In Mentone Girls' Grammar School it looks like a shield, in Meriden School like a roundel.)

Since neither of these is a crest, I modified them to "arms" and "logo" respectively. Another editor reverted the change on the grounds that the schools in question refer to their symbols as "crests".

I think that in this case "crest" is a term of art and therefore we should use less precise terms for things which aren't crests. What do you people think? Marnanel (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably it would be best to explain to the reader that although technically a coat of arms or a logo, the symbol is officially referred to by the school as a "crest". — Kpalion(talk) 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The second image is a new logo, but thinking copyright wise, do we have a good source for the designer of the first insignia and the heraldic artist? Valentinian T / C 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

## third dimension

Many of the proposals of the project's coat of arms show a three dimensional shield. Don't misunderstand me. As you can see here, I like to do them too, so I don't have a problem, but "official" German heraldry does not allow three dimensional painting or light reflexes on the shield itself. I would like to know: Are such things allowed in other national rules of heraldry?--Thw1309 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that in English heraldry, at least, charges are meant to be shown three dimensionally. If they are added to the shield, then they should be shown with shadows and what-not. Line divisions are not shown in relief.--Eva bd 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

## Scope

I think we should change the scope statement on the page to include flag and COA images on any article. There are a lot of articles in Category:Heraldry and vexillology articles needing images that haven't been tagged with the WPHV template, because there are a lot of other talk page templates with "coatneed" and "flagneeded" parameters that put articles in that category. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea for project members to help with needed images, but I don't see that tagging any article that contains a coat of arms or flag image with the template would help anyone. JPD (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't what I wanted to suggest. All I'm suggesting is changing the text in the "scope" section at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology to include all flag and COA images, regardless of whether or not they're in a heraldry or vexillology article. I'm not suggesting tagging anything more than we already do, and I don't think that it will create more work for us either. Many of the posts on this page are about images, not articles. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, we need to update the category anyways, since I have seen articles in there that now have images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

## Boutell template

This article incorporates text from the eleventh edition (1914) of The Handbook to English Heraldry by Charles Boutell, edited by A. C. Fox-Davies, which is in the public domain in the United States.

Also, we don't seem to have an article on Charles Boutell. - PKM (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to put a link to the book on Project Gutenberg?[7] -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I can do that! - PKM (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fox-Davies died in 1928 and Boutell died in 1877, so the book must also be PD in both Britain and all countries operating with the 70 years p.m.a. rule. I couldn't find any actual information about the illustrator, R.B. Utting, but he is mentioned in connection with an edition from 1867,[8] so it seems fair to assume that he too, died before 1937. Valentinian T / C 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

## Inaccuracy in Marchmont Herald? Succession box practices?

Greetings, Honourable Members of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. I have come to seek your advice on two matters related to the scope of your project. These are:

1. There appears to be an erroneous entry in the list of Marchmont Heralds, namely that of Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk. His article makes no mention whatsoever of this title; as a matter of fact, it states that he was a Herald Extraordinary during the very years fow which the list names him as occupant of the aforementioned office. It is impossible that both pages are correct.
2. Another issue, more general, is that of succession boxes. I am a member of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (please have a look if you have time; you might want to join) and I have taken up the task of improving the succession boxes of British heraldic officers. I should thus like to confirm my ideas of what exactly the current practices are, as far as succession boxes are concerned, namely, what are the tracking criteria. From what I have seen so far, it would seem that only Kings of Arms, Heralds in Ordinary, and Pursuivants in Ordinary are entitled to their own succession boxes, and that officers extraordinary are not. Has this ever been discussed? Is there any specific preference within the project? I need to know how I am to proceed.

I should greatly appreciate any feedback hereto, as it would assist the improvement of many biographical articles connected to heraldry. After all, there are no article series boxes about these officers, so succession boxes are quite useful for navigational purposes. Waltham, The Duke of 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

About the succession boxes, we have not told anyone on what to make and what not to make, not I don't remember any discussion about boxes in general. As for the first issue, just remove the information you believe/know it is false. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem: I cannot tell which piece of information is false; there are no sources in either article! And I am afraid that scouting for sources is far from my area of expertise. I fear that I someone else must bear this burden.
Now, if there are no practices for succession boxes here, I do believe that some ought to come to being. The SBS Guidelines page is meant to detail all practices applied to succession boxes, and anything decided here and accepted by SBS is bound to find its way into said page. Any interested editor will subsequently be able to access the information on these practices and be educated by them and improve their edits accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone watching this page? Come on, it cannot be that boring. Waltham, The Duke of 15:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

## Flag of Germany - help needed

For the last few months I've been working on Flag of Germany. In July it looked like this and now it looks like this. In working on this article, I've drawn on a number of articles that can now possibly be merged into this one (see various mergefrom requests now in the article) plus a number of articles from the German wiki, and a few other sources, while at the same time trying to provide as many supporting references as possible. I am very interested in getting this article up to GA (or even FA?) standard so I would appreciate it if people could proofread it and/or expand/clarify any points that may need attention. After working on this for the last few months, I'd really really need some fresh eyes on this article. Thanks - 52 Pickup (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)