Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology
Deletion notices are transcluded from a subpage. Go to /XfD to edit a deletion notice, as these will not appear in the edit window by clicking 'Edit' at the top of this page. To add a new XfD notice, click the button below to create a new section at the bottom of the list.
Sodacan (who now no longer seems to be active here) created this image in September 2022, ironically just after Elizabeth II died. The court has now followed Charles III's decision to change from St Edward's Crown to the Tudor Crown. Would anyone be able to replace or modify this image accordingly? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Manuel Belgrano has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more-or-less a drive-by suggestion, but I felt like I should raise it. I've never really interacted with the topic of heraldry either on-wiki or in real life, so on rare occasions when I do see anything to do with the subject (in this case, it was a comprehensive description of a coat of arms on someone's userpage) I find myself wondering what all the different terms mean. Template:Heraldry offers a bit of help with this, but I think a dedicated glossary would be ideal in terms of providing a centralised reference point. Searching this page's archives, I was surprised that the term "glossary" only returns 5 results; most recently, in 2023, this exact issue was raised, but no actual discussion ensued! If I were a bit more acquainted with the subject of heraldry, I would likely try to get a glossary page going myself, but I would be immediately out of my depth so I will leave it to the experts. I suspect that for someone who knows a lot about the subject, it would be fairly easy to create a new article based on the structure of Glossary of vexillology; there are also some hefty glossary-type sections already included in Charge (heraldry), Ordinary (heraldry), Attitude (heraldry) and Tincture (heraldry), so I think there's plenty to be going on with. Glossary of heraldry is crying out to be created! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medal of Honor has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using more historically accurate Italian/Vatican shapes for Papal coat of arms
Hi! I've noticed recently that while many 20th century popes coat of arms have the traiditional italian/roman shape you see in historical examples, this is not true for popes between the Renaissance and the modern age. I realize that the shape of the CoA is arbitrary, but all things equal, why not use the one that is more in line with the historical application?
Showing here a gallery example for [[Urban VIII]. The current shape is the more mediecal English/French one rather than the rounded horse-head italian one preferred at the time.
Current image
Arms
Arms in the Vatican
Sculpted arms
another example
example
Another possible historically fitting shape
How it could be, shape wise
More accurate shape for John Paul I and other recent popes, could do this for Urban VIII and other early modern pople.
I have just joined this project and do hope I can keep helping advance Wiki's heraldic content... Please feel free to give me a steer whilst I get the hang of what's needed!
A quick intro might be useful... fascinated by heraldry since early teenagehood when I joined the Heraldry Society, I did a stint of work experience at the College of Arms before reading history at university. I have a substantial collection of historical books (about 15,000!), including almost all of Burke's Peerage & Baronetage and Burke's Landed Gentry editions plus Debrett's as well as Collin's Peerage, The Complete Peerage, The Complete Baronetage etc etc... So if anyone needs anything looking up or verifying I might well be able to assist... I love the visual attraction of coats of arms but I must confess artwork has never been my strong suit, rather my interest stems from the historical side of heraldry including its evolution through the ages; accordingly the descent and correct use of arms very much intertwines. I work in the City and have a global client base, affording me the chance to travel and appreciate foreign heraldry too. Hopefully the above blurb gives you a clue as to where my strengths lie - always better to play to them rather than try to muddle through things one doesn't really get!!!
So here goes! my request is regarding the Salters' Companycoat of arms. Wiki boasts such an impressive range of heraldic images, including those of most Citylivery companies.. If the escutcheon of the Salters' Company could be retouched I should be much obliged. The present illustration, although adequate, falls a little short of the quality of Wiki's arms of the other Great Twelve City Livery Companies (I'm a liveryman of one of them and also of another ancient non-G12 company jfyi)...
The issue, I venture to suggest, is how to digitally create the principal charges of Salt Cellars as depicted in the Salters' arms... I've scoured Wiki and can't seem to find any existing representations of such Salts (aka Salt Cellars) which might be of help.
I append here, the blazon for the sake of good order as well as some other images of the Salters' arms for guidance...
Blazon: Per Chevron Azure and Gules three Covered Salts Argent garnished Or overflowing of the Third
@Cakelot1: thanks for your message and suffice to say that the arms I have uploaded are in compliance with the law. I can see from the reams of discussion on Wiki about this matter, ie. the interpretation of copyright under Wiki's guidelines vis-à-vis the correct use of coats of arms and, to me, there seems to be a slight disparity between the options Wiki makes available for denoting compliance with copyright law and the law of England and Wales.
Robert Cooke granted the Salters' arms in 1591, so obviously he's no longer around to sign this off. The College of Arms could ofc issue, for a fee, an affidavit attesting to the correct use of these arms but this would cost money each time and in any event wouldn't be in email form. The College would issue a formal document to whoever paid the fee - so that's really a totally superfluous and costly exercise.
As you've probably surmised I know the Salters' Company well & they are fully looped in with my Wiki contributions... In fact they're rather delighted that Wiki's info is now correct - the most glaring error previously was the misblazoning of their heraldic supporters - it stated otters before, now corrected to ounces (the heraldic term for snow leopards)!
Just as a note, with a view to avoid further convoluted discussion about what can become a somewhat vexed issue (ie. the Wiki copyright parameters don't quite marry up with English common law regarding heraldry), it must seem quite odd to some that unless the Salters' arms are displayed inappropriately or incorrectly then there is no problem - in other words, totally in compliance with the law. The Earl Marshal's Court can't launch cases of its own volition and the Salters' Company could only issue proceedings against anyone who is misusing their arms. If no loss can be demonstrated (ie. the unlawful use of their arms) then there is no case to answer. I know this might seem strange but this is how English common law works - ofc it differs in other jurisdictions elsewhere around the world. Given that there is literally no-one authorised to send such an email as you suggest (unless a King of Arms were to take it upon himself to do so, which is extremely unlikely unless he received a fee!) then it could be the case that we have to take down many, many heraldic images displayed on Wiki (for consistency). In summary, if I somehow put the Salters' arms on say the Haberdashers' Wiki page then that would be unlawful, but when appropriately displayed in respect of the Salters' Company that is not only lawful but quite helpful. There is absolutely no claim anyone could bring - it would literally be laughed out of court...
Just thinking aloud to consider other solutions, I suppose one could get an official of the Salters' Company to send an email, but they don't have relevant legal authority so such an email wouldn't carry any legal weight and could only be regarded in law as an advisory box-ticking exercise. If this matter continues to cause concern to the powers-that-be at Wikipedia then I'd be happy to liaise further - other ideas might be for Wikipedia to seek a legal opinion from Garter King of Arms regarding the use of English and Welsh arms on Wiki's pages - subject to how such a request was couched Garter could issue a form of words (in much the same way as KCs do) - to serve as a catch-all advice on the display of English and Welsh arms by Wikipedia. Another way could be to seek a Judicial Review which would be legally binding but this would also be massively OTT and an utter waste of money.
Prompting rather esoteric points in law, many interesting discussions on heraldry can ensue (well, interesting when discussed in the right context and don't veer off-piste, as it would appear they so easily do)!
So with all this in mind, what is the most appropriate license tag to apply? The Salters' arms with their supporters are 434 years' old and the shield (& crest) alone are 494 years' old. Moreover these arms are free to use for the sole representation of the Salters' Company (and no other entity).
Many thanks for bringing this up & I trust my explanation is of some help - looking forward to hearing further and it would be especially good to know which copyright tag you would recommend using accordingly going forward.
@Primm1234, If the emblazonment was actually from 1591 (which it obvosly isn't) then it would be public domain. It may still be PD, but you didn't provide any actual infomation about where you found the image or who drew it.
If it isn't PD, the most apropraite licence tag is whatever you can get the copyright owner (the person/institution that actualy drew the image, or the person/institution who now owns that copyright on the image) to release it under any free licence (via COM:VRT). If you can't get the copyright owner to release it under any free licence it will be deleted from commons (along with all other files for which there isn't enough infomation to make sure they are under a free licence).Cakelot1 ☞️ talk19:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be absolutely clear, to be uploadeable to commons (and thus uable on wikipedia) these images need to be uasable by anybody in the world for any purpose (even commencial), not just wikipedia. If you don't have these assurances (which is what those CCBY4.0 licence you've added mean) for these images and can't get them soon I'm gong to list these for deletion on commons. Again by attaching these tags to these images your making a claim about what all reusers of any type may do with them, one which you aperently have nothing to back up. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cakelot1: cool - like you I do want to get this right. I've explained about the Salters' arms & can see CCBY4.0 could be open to abuse so let me study COM:COA to see which if any other license would suit better. I'll revert to you perhaps privately unless everyone wants to be looped in on this..? As for the other COAs I've uploaded we'd better go thru them one by one as some of them are mine... Let's liaise accordingly in the not-too-distant - many thanks again.
Yeah, fine with me. Feel free to leave measgeas on my talk here or my talk on commons, or ping me to any of your talk pages. But again this needs to be something that the copyright owner does to these images (unless it's PD, in which case it doesn't matter) not soemthing we can decide on there behalf. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk21:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
