![]() | Coat of arms was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Though a coat of arms certainly has to do with heraldry, I think it deserves its own article. jheijmans — Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 7 June 2002 (UTC)
What is with the "QUIT DELETING MY POSTS IM TRYING TO HELP" at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.245.141 ( talk) 03:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that coat of arms is also sometimes referred to as crest of arms, but an editor refuted my claim (edit summary was: "crest of arms? there aint no such thing!"), but apparently Coat of arms is sometimes referred to as such [7]. I intend to re-introduce this into the article – but I'll will wait pending input from others. What ya reckon? / Ezeu 19:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this a joke? The article is a tiny little stub right now. It includes absolutely no obscure information; everything in it is common knowledge. I can gladly add references for the sake of "further reading" or suchlike; but it's impossible to cite sources for my latest rewrite since the source is me! Doops | talk 18:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Here's the opening ¶ under the preferred version of User: Skull 'n' Femurs:
The main problem with this is that it takes a question of terminology and makes it the centerpiece of the article. The article isn't about terminology (or at least it shouldn't be); it's about COATS OF ARMS. Therefore the first sentence should, like practically every other article, define it. The first ¶ should lay out the situation as clearly and legibly as possible. We have to remember the reader first and foremost.
Additionally, I do not see the need to work "achievement" into the first sentence. The 2nd ¶ already makes quite clear what a heraldic achievement is and when that phrase is and is not synonomous with "arms" and "coats of arms." Insofar as this is an issue, the article cannot help involving itself in terminology; and it is important that we helpe the reader to navigate that minefield. But again, simplicity and clarity should be our watchword.
Finally, let me repeat what I said earlier up this page — in your obsession, Skulls n' Femurs, with "armorial bearings" and "heraldic achievements" you're trying to become more 'correct than the experts'. That has two problems: as a matter of style, it makes the wikipedia look forbidding and uptight; as a matter of substance, it might leave the reader with the misapprehension that "arms" and "coat of arms" are somehow wrong, which they aren't. Doops | talk 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In some heraldic traditions (such as the Scottish) it is basically true that coats of Arms are individual possessions which can be passed down through more than one generation in the line of heirs (usually the eldest sons), but it is NOT true in other traditions (such as the English, where many cousins of the same surname can have identical coats of arms). The article page should reflect this. AnonMoos 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As I (mis)understand the history, the "coat of arms" is so called because it was painted or embroidered on a cloth tunic worn over metal armor to keep the sun off; this "coat" had the same design as the shield. The word coat is also used for the components of an impaled or quartered shield, and the article ought to mention this somewhere. — Tamfang 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone seriously wrote that the "coats of arms" of France and Italy are more heraldic than that of the USA? — Tamfang 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The external link at the bottom links to a program for Win95. Surely that's very old and should be removed? →bjornthegreat t| c 12:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Helmet#Sovereign - Kittybrewster 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If I want to include the coat of arms of a family in an article in wikipedia, do I need to get the permission of the family? Does fair use apply? Anyways, in the US is ownership of really old coats of arms even recognized? nadav 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, this page has been attracting a lot of IP vandalism. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:Semiprotection. nadav 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm what is the correct description of this i.e. used here for the Royal Greenwich Hospital, Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Outside of the Society for Creative Anachronism I've only seen one representation of badges on roundels: it's figure 822 in The Art of Heraldry (p.334), "The Stafford Badges as exemplified in 1720 to William Stafford Howard, Earl of Stafford" – and none of those has an ordinary throughout. Usually badges have no field. I think what we have here is simply a shield bent into a circle for convenience. The Royal Arms are sometimes put on a round shield to fit neatly within the Garter. (But I'll read up on badges tomorrow.) — Tamfang 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
History2007 is misrepresenting sources, and adding irrelevant information to this article.
-- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, now you are actually using some logic. So we can have a discussion. I do NOT agree with your logic, but this is a starting point for a debate.
The heart of the section I added was about the fact that "coats of arms are not just identification symbols, but intend to convey a message, often of respect, and at times intend to re-inforce an ideology". I can bring in 20 more references that support this fact. It is fact that coats of arms are communication tools as well as identification tools and since the 19th century they have ONLY been communication tools.
A good example was the reference I had from University of Warwick. Every English university has a coat of arms. It is not to identify them in battle, it is to "communicate an image". As for the Pope's coat of arms and its marian symbolism, it was ONLY to communicate a message and an ideology.
I think teh above fact is essential in understanding coats of arms today and deserves to be in the article. I can bring in many references, but you will, within minutes dismiss them, for you have clearly not read teh references I had. Therefore, before deleting the section again, please air your objection to the statements above first. Thanlk you. History2007 ( talk) 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. by the way, I assume you are no longer objecting to the sections I wrote on Japan and the Vatican. I guess you may have even learned someting from me in the past 3 days and everytime you see a Mitsubishi logo you will know the crest it came from. So at least some progres is being made History2007 ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
PPS Further thought: Perhaps there shoud just be a section on the "modern use of coats of arms" e.g. at univeristies, etc. and that can then include references to the fact that they are now used as communication tools, etc. That may in fact resolve the debate. You can even find those references yourself if you like, for there are plenty out there. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am busy for the erst of today probably, but will reply in a day or so. In the meantime, the key question is this: Is there a need here for a section on the "modern use" of coats of arms. Let us settle that issue first. So do you think this article needs to be about medieval times, or is there a place for discussing "modern usage". I think modern usage deserves a section. What do you think of that question first? History2007 ( talk) 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my question: assuming there is additional information (which I can easily obtain) will it be relevant? Relevance is a key issue you have brought about, so it needs to be addressed. Are coats of arms as defined here ONLY medieval, and is there need for a new article on "Modern coats of arms"? I seems that two articles would be too many for they need to link together, e.g the Mitsubishi case. Hence my guess is that given new information it will be relevant, sice your reply relied on the lack of info. History2007 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought a ittle bit more about the issues. It is best to start at the top leve. First, siince you questioned my motives, I asked myself: “Why do I bother to edit this little article on coats of arms anyway?”
Fact 1: Whether this article exits or not makes no difference to my life. I edited it because I was trying to understand coats of arms because it seemed like fun. I do not manufacture coats of arms and make no penny from them. I was just trying to understand them. The Pope's coat of arms made me think of them in the first place. I realized they are communication tools. I had not thought of them before. I was a line of thought that yet remains open.
Fact 2: Wikipedia does NOT help a user understand coats of arms. I still do not know what they are as defined by the article and how they are different from the terms seal and emblem used in the article. Other logically oriented users may have similar questions.
The real test:
By the way, one of them is listed as neither a coat of arms, nor a seal, nor an emblem but as another term. Can you guess which one without looking at the gallery? Until that issue of a "definition for coat of arms" is resolved the rest of the details have to wait.
My first problem with the current article: How is the term coat of arms (as used) distinguished from seal and emblem? There is an implied answer within the article that a coat of arms has a distinct geometric shape. Namely a seal has a round/circular shape while a coat of arms has a triangular shape like a shield. The article implies that there is a specific European tradition in heraldry that requires specific elements. It seems to me that coat of arms of Switzerland breaks these rules and must be excluded from the gallery. So what are these rules? When does an emblem become a coat of arms?
I can think of a mapping of metric spaces that preserves specific properties to a representative within a congruence class (by the way the congruence class article needs help too, for it misses geometric and algebraic cases!). The Swiss coat of arms seems to have the absolute minimal requirements here. But then all the other emblems and seals in the gallery must be deleted. For instance the emblem of France is clearly NOT a coat of arms. Or is it? And ehat about Indonesia? Will someone clarify this? And visually speaking how is the emblem of Turkey making its way into the gallery? It seems so similar to the Swiss coat of arms, yet it is called an emblem? So how are they different? Is it the pointed edge? The article is not specific or factual here. As for Ethiopia, Japan and the United States, well they are clearly not coats of arms and have no place in the gallery. Hence the gallery needs serious deletions if we are to be logical.
Yet it seems that in fact the three terms “coat of arms”, “seal” and “emblem” have been used as a congruence class within the article. Hence either:
1. The article title needs to change to something new.
2. Many items from the gallery must be deleted.
3. It must be admitted that the terms seal, coat of arms ad emblem are used as a congruence class.
In my mind the only solutions are:
A. A clear answer to the above dilemma a thinking user will have.
B. Many deletions from the gallery.
C. Approach 3, by declaring a congruence class.
The article is in clear need of further explanation and restructuring. Please express your thoughts before we go further. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | Technically speaking, it is an emblem rather than a coat of arms, since it does not respect heraldic rules—heraldry being seen as an aristocratic art, and therefore associated with the Ancien Régime. | ” |
Thank you for the link. But if I have to read an external link, that means that the Wikipedia article has failed to inform me. Why don't we "fix the wiki-article" rather than having to go and read soemthing outside. In the end, Wikipedia is intended ot be complete. Right? Now, in your view, what is the rationale for universities using them? Again, thanks for the link History2007 ( talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I will try to read up on these items. They are interesting. So universities use them as "symbols that communicate status" and I guess in time aristocrats have also used them as "status symbols" rather than just "identification marks" - dare I say the Prada or Giorgio Armani marks of the 18th century? I wondered if anyone had looked into the symbolism used in the archetypal context of Man and His Symbols. I did a search, but found almost nothing. I will look more.... My guess is that there is some underlying mechanism for communicating a message there in, and as discussed before, at times an "ideology", e.g. the university of Glasgow's coat of arms with the open book of knowledge at the top [9] probably tries to emphasize the importance of reading, learning, etc. History2007 ( talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The motto on the bottom of Indonesian coat of arms reads Bhinneka Tunggal Inka. It should reads Bhinneka Tunggal IKA (not inka). Wrong spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.74.120 ( talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Should discuss unusual phenomenon of rare Japanese armigers, such as the current Emperor. -- 99.139.239.108 ( talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this language:
This implies that the Papacy is (armorially) special when it isn't. Around eight centuries ago, every person in a position of authority started using a coat of arms. When the office is not hereditary, the arms of the office (if any) and of its occupant are distinct. Let's find other wording. — Tamfang ( talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'd be able to understand if it were "Scandinavian" countries where the argument may come in that it is not a part of the peninsula, but certainly Denmark is a "Nordic" country, is it not? 4.255.55.29 ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I seen there symbols being called these (its the one next to the flag). Is there any real difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.248.218 ( talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
How would you call the blazoned shield in a coat of arms? "Shield" or "escutcheon" refers to the shape and not the content, whereas "coat of arms" includes the motto, the crest, the helmet, etc. Would you use the term "blazon shield", or "shield blazon", or another suggestion? Liam D ( talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello? Where is the Holy Roman Empire? Where are the Germanic States? These are the places from which other countries adopted Heraldry! (i.e. Vatican, Japan, Eastern European States, much later USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.105.222 ( talk) 04:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the word 'improper' from a description of the USA shield, remarking:
Hm. If so, it's backing out of a frying-pan to burn its butt on the fire, because paleways properly describes the position of a charge, not a partition of the field. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't so much that it is blazoned as "paleways" to mean paly, but that these ambiguous "pieces" are paleways. When using something generic like "pieces" you can use in pale or fessways for the same effect, or in fess and paleways for the same effect. The difference is more important and distinguishable when using an actual charge, like a sword or a lion. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If your whole argument was whether or not the sentence was proper English, then it was a misguided argument. It is blazon, not English. Blazon has its own set of style and rules independent from the English language, much of which is based on Early or Middle English, Old French and other small influences. When I said before how the blazon should be interpreted, it was not meant to imply that paleways describes the blazon, but that pieces must inherently be divided, and the paleways describes the way in which those divisions must be drawn, so it can be read as "divided paleways of thirteen pieces" or "divided into thirteen pieces paleways", whichever construct you prefer. They both mean the same, perhaps the latter is better so as not to confuse that paleways some how means something must be divided. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't really address the origins of the coats of arms. I know that the history of coats of arms, flags, and similar symbols in Europe and the Middle East is all closely tied. From what I have read most of the traditions associated with flags derive from the Germanic tribes but I believe that coats of arms and related symbols predate even the Romans, though I don't know the specifics.
Can anybody fill in the details?
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of a non sequitur; plenty of European arms are abstract or floral. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The coat of arms that is mentioned in the article to be for Egypt is wrong. The coat of arms shown in the picture follows the United Arab Republic as written on them. United arab republic is something different than current Egypt.
Amjad Abdullah ( talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
109.171.137.251 ( talk) 11:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
They're all listed at Coat of arms of Egypt... AnonMoos ( talk) 11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The public domain text I have just copied into the article, originates from Pimbley, Arthur Francis (1908). Pimbley's dictionary of heraldry. Pimbley. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) and is
copyright expired. The text copied into the article by me was copied from
Pimbley's Dictionary of Heraldry pp. 3-5, put onto the web by
Melissa Snell --
PBS (
talk)
13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Another editor reinstated this lengthy information. It was a new addition to the article, not something time tested. Also, the terms mostly come from one source, and are one author's opinion on how arms should be divided and classified, while other authors divide and classify arms differently. Some of these terms are repetitive, some definitions muddled and confusing. A few of the terms could be salvaged and expanded, but the whole list form and repetitious definitions should be removed.
Also, dates are quite relevant to a source. When you have two books, one stating the Earth is the centre of the solar system and the other stating it the Sun is, it is the date of the sources one will look at to determine which is the more recent and accepted theory. You can not give equal credence to the first theory as you do to the second theory which was built upon the first, as to the nth theory likewise built upon those before it. Many of the examples given tell tales that have long been discredited. There is no evidence that Washington’s arms influenced the design of the US arms. The actual legend about the Black Prince's feathers is that the prince took the helm of his rival, not his foe's coat of arms. The source is out-dated, it tells legends no longer beloved to be factual, and does not have a place then in this article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
See one source at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Libya#Citation_needed_.28Hawk_of_Quraish.29. It's rather doubtful whether they actually go back to Saladin or the Quraysh in their modern visual form, but that's what they've been called in 20th-century Arab nationalist rhetoric and symbolism... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a nice program for making coats of arms. How do I add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamallamarubberducky ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "The ancient Romans used similar insignias similar on their shields, ...". This would seem to be a duplication of the word "similar". I did not edit the page directly because this is not an area I am familiar with and I can't be sure that it wasn't intentional.
Why Turkey in Arab World ? Wanxpy ( talk) 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a RFC on Coat of arms of the Netherlands. All are welcome to comment. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Despot King of The Wizard of Id has a coat of Arms-his head on the body of a bull! {Sept 16, 1994 Comic}
Somebody need to add the spanish version of this article [10] on the Languages section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was informative, ineteresting, and had good citations. I did however, fix some grammatical errors such as changing the word honour into honor. Also, the word color was misspelled as colour. About 2 other words were misspelled as well. @ Alfgarciamora: Clydetheglide9 ( talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination. —
Calvin999
20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Structurally, I think this article is a mess. One line paragraphs should be minimised but there are multiple instances, even one line sections. I don't think this article passes 1b of the criteria and it seriously needs working on. I found this article really disjointed and no flow because of how the sections have been organisae and written. The lead needs to be shrunk too. It should be a summary. I think two paragraphs would be more than enough. I'm sorry but I can't pass this article. It needs to be majorly revised. — Calvin999 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LavaBaron ( talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
reasonably well written
- tinctures do not use proper heraldic descriptions, despite the fact heraldic language is used in other facets of the article (e.g. "with a blue chief, which is displayed upon" - should be "with a chief Azure ...") - either plain language descriptions should be used throughout or heraldic terminology throughout, but we shouldn't do a mix-and-match
factually accurate and verifiable
- vast sections, too numerous to itemize here, lack inline citations
- this otherwise exhaustive article only has 15 sources, none of which are the formative, cornerstone texts on this topic (e.g. Boutelle's Heraldry, etc.)
broad in its coverage
- overly broad in parts ... the only reason there would be a section on flags in this article is if it were to describe banners of arms, which it does not
- the section on New World Practices describes the arms of the United States in such a way that does not account for recent research into the topic; see, for example,
Boulton's comprehensive study in the most recent issue of Alta Studia Heraldica, among others
NPOV
- yes
stable
- yes; recent substantial edits have been by the nom in order to prep it for GA review
illustrated
- though the article is on arms specifically, the illustrations are all of the entire heraldic achievement (compartments, supporters, crest, etc.) less badge, but are captioned to indicate they are the "coat of arms" which will create confusion for the reader
The sourcing issue is such a big one with this nomination that there is no reason to put the article on hold for improvement. It should not be nominated for GA consideration until every statement in the article is sourced to RS. At a minimum, that means an inline citation at the end of every paragraph (though likely every sentence, given the complexity of the topic). At present, we have nearly one dozen paragraphs that lack even a single source. LavaBaron ( talk) 12:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Coat of arms was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Though a coat of arms certainly has to do with heraldry, I think it deserves its own article. jheijmans — Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 7 June 2002 (UTC)
What is with the "QUIT DELETING MY POSTS IM TRYING TO HELP" at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.245.141 ( talk) 03:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that coat of arms is also sometimes referred to as crest of arms, but an editor refuted my claim (edit summary was: "crest of arms? there aint no such thing!"), but apparently Coat of arms is sometimes referred to as such [7]. I intend to re-introduce this into the article – but I'll will wait pending input from others. What ya reckon? / Ezeu 19:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this a joke? The article is a tiny little stub right now. It includes absolutely no obscure information; everything in it is common knowledge. I can gladly add references for the sake of "further reading" or suchlike; but it's impossible to cite sources for my latest rewrite since the source is me! Doops | talk 18:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Here's the opening ¶ under the preferred version of User: Skull 'n' Femurs:
The main problem with this is that it takes a question of terminology and makes it the centerpiece of the article. The article isn't about terminology (or at least it shouldn't be); it's about COATS OF ARMS. Therefore the first sentence should, like practically every other article, define it. The first ¶ should lay out the situation as clearly and legibly as possible. We have to remember the reader first and foremost.
Additionally, I do not see the need to work "achievement" into the first sentence. The 2nd ¶ already makes quite clear what a heraldic achievement is and when that phrase is and is not synonomous with "arms" and "coats of arms." Insofar as this is an issue, the article cannot help involving itself in terminology; and it is important that we helpe the reader to navigate that minefield. But again, simplicity and clarity should be our watchword.
Finally, let me repeat what I said earlier up this page — in your obsession, Skulls n' Femurs, with "armorial bearings" and "heraldic achievements" you're trying to become more 'correct than the experts'. That has two problems: as a matter of style, it makes the wikipedia look forbidding and uptight; as a matter of substance, it might leave the reader with the misapprehension that "arms" and "coat of arms" are somehow wrong, which they aren't. Doops | talk 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In some heraldic traditions (such as the Scottish) it is basically true that coats of Arms are individual possessions which can be passed down through more than one generation in the line of heirs (usually the eldest sons), but it is NOT true in other traditions (such as the English, where many cousins of the same surname can have identical coats of arms). The article page should reflect this. AnonMoos 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As I (mis)understand the history, the "coat of arms" is so called because it was painted or embroidered on a cloth tunic worn over metal armor to keep the sun off; this "coat" had the same design as the shield. The word coat is also used for the components of an impaled or quartered shield, and the article ought to mention this somewhere. — Tamfang 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone seriously wrote that the "coats of arms" of France and Italy are more heraldic than that of the USA? — Tamfang 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The external link at the bottom links to a program for Win95. Surely that's very old and should be removed? →bjornthegreat t| c 12:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Helmet#Sovereign - Kittybrewster 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If I want to include the coat of arms of a family in an article in wikipedia, do I need to get the permission of the family? Does fair use apply? Anyways, in the US is ownership of really old coats of arms even recognized? nadav 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, this page has been attracting a lot of IP vandalism. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:Semiprotection. nadav 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm what is the correct description of this i.e. used here for the Royal Greenwich Hospital, Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Outside of the Society for Creative Anachronism I've only seen one representation of badges on roundels: it's figure 822 in The Art of Heraldry (p.334), "The Stafford Badges as exemplified in 1720 to William Stafford Howard, Earl of Stafford" – and none of those has an ordinary throughout. Usually badges have no field. I think what we have here is simply a shield bent into a circle for convenience. The Royal Arms are sometimes put on a round shield to fit neatly within the Garter. (But I'll read up on badges tomorrow.) — Tamfang 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
History2007 is misrepresenting sources, and adding irrelevant information to this article.
-- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Good, now you are actually using some logic. So we can have a discussion. I do NOT agree with your logic, but this is a starting point for a debate.
The heart of the section I added was about the fact that "coats of arms are not just identification symbols, but intend to convey a message, often of respect, and at times intend to re-inforce an ideology". I can bring in 20 more references that support this fact. It is fact that coats of arms are communication tools as well as identification tools and since the 19th century they have ONLY been communication tools.
A good example was the reference I had from University of Warwick. Every English university has a coat of arms. It is not to identify them in battle, it is to "communicate an image". As for the Pope's coat of arms and its marian symbolism, it was ONLY to communicate a message and an ideology.
I think teh above fact is essential in understanding coats of arms today and deserves to be in the article. I can bring in many references, but you will, within minutes dismiss them, for you have clearly not read teh references I had. Therefore, before deleting the section again, please air your objection to the statements above first. Thanlk you. History2007 ( talk) 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. by the way, I assume you are no longer objecting to the sections I wrote on Japan and the Vatican. I guess you may have even learned someting from me in the past 3 days and everytime you see a Mitsubishi logo you will know the crest it came from. So at least some progres is being made History2007 ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
PPS Further thought: Perhaps there shoud just be a section on the "modern use of coats of arms" e.g. at univeristies, etc. and that can then include references to the fact that they are now used as communication tools, etc. That may in fact resolve the debate. You can even find those references yourself if you like, for there are plenty out there. Thanks History2007 ( talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am busy for the erst of today probably, but will reply in a day or so. In the meantime, the key question is this: Is there a need here for a section on the "modern use" of coats of arms. Let us settle that issue first. So do you think this article needs to be about medieval times, or is there a place for discussing "modern usage". I think modern usage deserves a section. What do you think of that question first? History2007 ( talk) 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my question: assuming there is additional information (which I can easily obtain) will it be relevant? Relevance is a key issue you have brought about, so it needs to be addressed. Are coats of arms as defined here ONLY medieval, and is there need for a new article on "Modern coats of arms"? I seems that two articles would be too many for they need to link together, e.g the Mitsubishi case. Hence my guess is that given new information it will be relevant, sice your reply relied on the lack of info. History2007 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought a ittle bit more about the issues. It is best to start at the top leve. First, siince you questioned my motives, I asked myself: “Why do I bother to edit this little article on coats of arms anyway?”
Fact 1: Whether this article exits or not makes no difference to my life. I edited it because I was trying to understand coats of arms because it seemed like fun. I do not manufacture coats of arms and make no penny from them. I was just trying to understand them. The Pope's coat of arms made me think of them in the first place. I realized they are communication tools. I had not thought of them before. I was a line of thought that yet remains open.
Fact 2: Wikipedia does NOT help a user understand coats of arms. I still do not know what they are as defined by the article and how they are different from the terms seal and emblem used in the article. Other logically oriented users may have similar questions.
The real test:
By the way, one of them is listed as neither a coat of arms, nor a seal, nor an emblem but as another term. Can you guess which one without looking at the gallery? Until that issue of a "definition for coat of arms" is resolved the rest of the details have to wait.
My first problem with the current article: How is the term coat of arms (as used) distinguished from seal and emblem? There is an implied answer within the article that a coat of arms has a distinct geometric shape. Namely a seal has a round/circular shape while a coat of arms has a triangular shape like a shield. The article implies that there is a specific European tradition in heraldry that requires specific elements. It seems to me that coat of arms of Switzerland breaks these rules and must be excluded from the gallery. So what are these rules? When does an emblem become a coat of arms?
I can think of a mapping of metric spaces that preserves specific properties to a representative within a congruence class (by the way the congruence class article needs help too, for it misses geometric and algebraic cases!). The Swiss coat of arms seems to have the absolute minimal requirements here. But then all the other emblems and seals in the gallery must be deleted. For instance the emblem of France is clearly NOT a coat of arms. Or is it? And ehat about Indonesia? Will someone clarify this? And visually speaking how is the emblem of Turkey making its way into the gallery? It seems so similar to the Swiss coat of arms, yet it is called an emblem? So how are they different? Is it the pointed edge? The article is not specific or factual here. As for Ethiopia, Japan and the United States, well they are clearly not coats of arms and have no place in the gallery. Hence the gallery needs serious deletions if we are to be logical.
Yet it seems that in fact the three terms “coat of arms”, “seal” and “emblem” have been used as a congruence class within the article. Hence either:
1. The article title needs to change to something new.
2. Many items from the gallery must be deleted.
3. It must be admitted that the terms seal, coat of arms ad emblem are used as a congruence class.
In my mind the only solutions are:
A. A clear answer to the above dilemma a thinking user will have.
B. Many deletions from the gallery.
C. Approach 3, by declaring a congruence class.
The article is in clear need of further explanation and restructuring. Please express your thoughts before we go further. Thank you. History2007 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
“ | Technically speaking, it is an emblem rather than a coat of arms, since it does not respect heraldic rules—heraldry being seen as an aristocratic art, and therefore associated with the Ancien Régime. | ” |
Thank you for the link. But if I have to read an external link, that means that the Wikipedia article has failed to inform me. Why don't we "fix the wiki-article" rather than having to go and read soemthing outside. In the end, Wikipedia is intended ot be complete. Right? Now, in your view, what is the rationale for universities using them? Again, thanks for the link History2007 ( talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I will try to read up on these items. They are interesting. So universities use them as "symbols that communicate status" and I guess in time aristocrats have also used them as "status symbols" rather than just "identification marks" - dare I say the Prada or Giorgio Armani marks of the 18th century? I wondered if anyone had looked into the symbolism used in the archetypal context of Man and His Symbols. I did a search, but found almost nothing. I will look more.... My guess is that there is some underlying mechanism for communicating a message there in, and as discussed before, at times an "ideology", e.g. the university of Glasgow's coat of arms with the open book of knowledge at the top [9] probably tries to emphasize the importance of reading, learning, etc. History2007 ( talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The motto on the bottom of Indonesian coat of arms reads Bhinneka Tunggal Inka. It should reads Bhinneka Tunggal IKA (not inka). Wrong spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.74.120 ( talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Should discuss unusual phenomenon of rare Japanese armigers, such as the current Emperor. -- 99.139.239.108 ( talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this language:
This implies that the Papacy is (armorially) special when it isn't. Around eight centuries ago, every person in a position of authority started using a coat of arms. When the office is not hereditary, the arms of the office (if any) and of its occupant are distinct. Let's find other wording. — Tamfang ( talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'd be able to understand if it were "Scandinavian" countries where the argument may come in that it is not a part of the peninsula, but certainly Denmark is a "Nordic" country, is it not? 4.255.55.29 ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I seen there symbols being called these (its the one next to the flag). Is there any real difference between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.248.218 ( talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
How would you call the blazoned shield in a coat of arms? "Shield" or "escutcheon" refers to the shape and not the content, whereas "coat of arms" includes the motto, the crest, the helmet, etc. Would you use the term "blazon shield", or "shield blazon", or another suggestion? Liam D ( talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello? Where is the Holy Roman Empire? Where are the Germanic States? These are the places from which other countries adopted Heraldry! (i.e. Vatican, Japan, Eastern European States, much later USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.105.222 ( talk) 04:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the word 'improper' from a description of the USA shield, remarking:
Hm. If so, it's backing out of a frying-pan to burn its butt on the fire, because paleways properly describes the position of a charge, not a partition of the field. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't so much that it is blazoned as "paleways" to mean paly, but that these ambiguous "pieces" are paleways. When using something generic like "pieces" you can use in pale or fessways for the same effect, or in fess and paleways for the same effect. The difference is more important and distinguishable when using an actual charge, like a sword or a lion. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If your whole argument was whether or not the sentence was proper English, then it was a misguided argument. It is blazon, not English. Blazon has its own set of style and rules independent from the English language, much of which is based on Early or Middle English, Old French and other small influences. When I said before how the blazon should be interpreted, it was not meant to imply that paleways describes the blazon, but that pieces must inherently be divided, and the paleways describes the way in which those divisions must be drawn, so it can be read as "divided paleways of thirteen pieces" or "divided into thirteen pieces paleways", whichever construct you prefer. They both mean the same, perhaps the latter is better so as not to confuse that paleways some how means something must be divided. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't really address the origins of the coats of arms. I know that the history of coats of arms, flags, and similar symbols in Europe and the Middle East is all closely tied. From what I have read most of the traditions associated with flags derive from the Germanic tribes but I believe that coats of arms and related symbols predate even the Romans, though I don't know the specifics.
Can anybody fill in the details?
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of a non sequitur; plenty of European arms are abstract or floral. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The coat of arms that is mentioned in the article to be for Egypt is wrong. The coat of arms shown in the picture follows the United Arab Republic as written on them. United arab republic is something different than current Egypt.
Amjad Abdullah ( talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
109.171.137.251 ( talk) 11:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
They're all listed at Coat of arms of Egypt... AnonMoos ( talk) 11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The public domain text I have just copied into the article, originates from Pimbley, Arthur Francis (1908). Pimbley's dictionary of heraldry. Pimbley. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) and is
copyright expired. The text copied into the article by me was copied from
Pimbley's Dictionary of Heraldry pp. 3-5, put onto the web by
Melissa Snell --
PBS (
talk)
13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Another editor reinstated this lengthy information. It was a new addition to the article, not something time tested. Also, the terms mostly come from one source, and are one author's opinion on how arms should be divided and classified, while other authors divide and classify arms differently. Some of these terms are repetitive, some definitions muddled and confusing. A few of the terms could be salvaged and expanded, but the whole list form and repetitious definitions should be removed.
Also, dates are quite relevant to a source. When you have two books, one stating the Earth is the centre of the solar system and the other stating it the Sun is, it is the date of the sources one will look at to determine which is the more recent and accepted theory. You can not give equal credence to the first theory as you do to the second theory which was built upon the first, as to the nth theory likewise built upon those before it. Many of the examples given tell tales that have long been discredited. There is no evidence that Washington’s arms influenced the design of the US arms. The actual legend about the Black Prince's feathers is that the prince took the helm of his rival, not his foe's coat of arms. The source is out-dated, it tells legends no longer beloved to be factual, and does not have a place then in this article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
See one source at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Libya#Citation_needed_.28Hawk_of_Quraish.29. It's rather doubtful whether they actually go back to Saladin or the Quraysh in their modern visual form, but that's what they've been called in 20th-century Arab nationalist rhetoric and symbolism... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a nice program for making coats of arms. How do I add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamallamarubberducky ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "The ancient Romans used similar insignias similar on their shields, ...". This would seem to be a duplication of the word "similar". I did not edit the page directly because this is not an area I am familiar with and I can't be sure that it wasn't intentional.
Why Turkey in Arab World ? Wanxpy ( talk) 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a RFC on Coat of arms of the Netherlands. All are welcome to comment. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Despot King of The Wizard of Id has a coat of Arms-his head on the body of a bull! {Sept 16, 1994 Comic}
Somebody need to add the spanish version of this article [10] on the Languages section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was informative, ineteresting, and had good citations. I did however, fix some grammatical errors such as changing the word honour into honor. Also, the word color was misspelled as colour. About 2 other words were misspelled as well. @ Alfgarciamora: Clydetheglide9 ( talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination. —
Calvin999
20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Structurally, I think this article is a mess. One line paragraphs should be minimised but there are multiple instances, even one line sections. I don't think this article passes 1b of the criteria and it seriously needs working on. I found this article really disjointed and no flow because of how the sections have been organisae and written. The lead needs to be shrunk too. It should be a summary. I think two paragraphs would be more than enough. I'm sorry but I can't pass this article. It needs to be majorly revised. — Calvin999 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LavaBaron ( talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
reasonably well written
- tinctures do not use proper heraldic descriptions, despite the fact heraldic language is used in other facets of the article (e.g. "with a blue chief, which is displayed upon" - should be "with a chief Azure ...") - either plain language descriptions should be used throughout or heraldic terminology throughout, but we shouldn't do a mix-and-match
factually accurate and verifiable
- vast sections, too numerous to itemize here, lack inline citations
- this otherwise exhaustive article only has 15 sources, none of which are the formative, cornerstone texts on this topic (e.g. Boutelle's Heraldry, etc.)
broad in its coverage
- overly broad in parts ... the only reason there would be a section on flags in this article is if it were to describe banners of arms, which it does not
- the section on New World Practices describes the arms of the United States in such a way that does not account for recent research into the topic; see, for example,
Boulton's comprehensive study in the most recent issue of Alta Studia Heraldica, among others
NPOV
- yes
stable
- yes; recent substantial edits have been by the nom in order to prep it for GA review
illustrated
- though the article is on arms specifically, the illustrations are all of the entire heraldic achievement (compartments, supporters, crest, etc.) less badge, but are captioned to indicate they are the "coat of arms" which will create confusion for the reader
The sourcing issue is such a big one with this nomination that there is no reason to put the article on hold for improvement. It should not be nominated for GA consideration until every statement in the article is sourced to RS. At a minimum, that means an inline citation at the end of every paragraph (though likely every sentence, given the complexity of the topic). At present, we have nearly one dozen paragraphs that lack even a single source. LavaBaron ( talk) 12:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)