Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Former badge of the Turks and Caicos Islands
Former badge of the Turks and Caicos Islands
Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands
Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands
  • Reviewed: Breton Ballads
  • Comment: Left image for ALT0. Right image for ALT1 and ALT2.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • It looks like the article barely misses being a fivefold expansion, but the prose portion is adequately long. Was the person who turned the salt heaps into igloos a designer or an official? Sources appear to disagree on this. I can't check all sources but I didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism or any non-neutral content. I question whether we should use the newspaper sources here, though. I think ALT1 is more interesting but perhaps an even better hook could be made by stating that someone mistakenly turned the salt heaps into igloos? Regarding the images, are they coats of arms where the blazon is standardized and the actual depiction up to each artist? QPQ is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: It passes 5× expansion, because the July 21, 2019 version (i.e. version immediately before June 23 edit) is 437 characters. That means 2,185 characters are required (already met with 2,337). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: as for the images, I think the left one is definitely a coat of arms with its standardized depiction. I'm unsure if that's the case for the badge on the right (could be faithful reproduction of the design at the time). How's this for another hook:
ALT2:... that the salt mounds on the former badge of the Turks and Caicos Islands (pictured) were mistakenly turned into igloos?
Should I specify that doors were added? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to specify doors. The reason why I am wondering about the images is because if there is a standardized depiction it is probably a non-free image which we can't put on the main page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Would a standardized depiction be covered by expired Crown copyright (as in Template:PD-UKGov)? I'm pretty sure both designs were published before 1971. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems reasonable. Regarding the size issue, I think a further expansion might be in order. That only leaves my "designer or an official" question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: did I not already explain in my first reply why this meets 5×? Here goes again: It passes 5× expansion, because the July 21, 2019 version (i.e. version immediately before June 23 edit) is 437 characters. That means 2,185 characters are required (already met with 2,337). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I got some conflicting sizes from different sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: To calculate I used User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which is the "preferred counting method, and usually carries the most weight at DYK" according to DYKSGA3. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This leaves only the "designer or an official" question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've worded it in the article to: "when the designer or an official at the Admiralty reportedly mistaken …" Hope that works. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for ALT2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no good contemporaneous sourcing for the “igloo” canard.

[edit]

Nothing about this until well after the fact, and it appears to have grown, as folklore so often does, by a string of added assumptions being raised first as a possibility, then taken as fact. Qwirkle (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source saying it's a canard or fake (or at least saying something different)? If no, then it looks like original research. Brandmeistertalk 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purely as an example, and picked for accesibility, consider the National Geographic Vol. LXVI no. 3 Spepember 1934. Flags of the World. From page 377: “With its three-masted ship under full sail, two salt piles, three baskets, and a native in a red jacket, the badge of these islands forms an interesting composition. It is used on the Blue Ensign.” Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like various sources treat it differently. Per this source, the "igloo" version comes from 1889 Admirality book and from a certain Jaumme. So the confusion did exist at some point, it seems. Brandmeistertalk 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PostWiki, it certainly does. Pre-wiki, a handful of sources, most of them remarkably lightweight. Looking at your particular claim here, a few points:

A commercial source advertising flags for sale which gives space to a self-published writer is not, in itself, a particularly strong cite. (From what I’ve read of it, the guy does seem to have some expertise, though.)

Referring to it as the “igloo” badge does not validate the fairytale this wiki page vectors, it may merely mean “the one some people claim look like igloos”. Note that it does not claim the Admiralty used this term.

Igloos were “in” in the 1870s, everybody knew what they looked like…or at least what they outta look like. A proper round dome, with an arched tunnel covering the entry point.

Finally, note the section’s title. Contemporaneous? Qwirkle (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further points of dubiety:

Cite after (modern) cite mentions “doors. Picture after picture shows a single black mark on oneof the salt piles, the right from the viewer’s point of view. So why do the stories have this wrong?

Different (modern) cites claim the supposed change was made either formally by the Admiralty or by some unspecified civil servant, or by an equally anonymous flagmaker. Does this suggest actual knowledge, or the usual variances of folklore?

No contemporaneous cites for igloos, one for “conical huts, most for “salt piles”. Why? Qwirkle (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have one (scroll down to the "The Turks and Caicos Igloo Flag" section), the "igloo" flag kept at the National Museum (presumably, Turks and Caicos National Museum). Brandmeistertalk 08:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. that’s a modern claim, and may, for all we know, be based on this article. Qwirkle (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can the flag kept by the Turks and Caicos National Museum be "a modern claim"? You can always contact them to verify that flag. Brandmeistertalk 16:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, there isny any doubt that, since about 1983 a few people have believed a fairytale about unknown malfeasors in London - sometimes civil servants, sometimes flagmakers- changing a design from saltpiles into igloos. And there is no doubt at all, that, like most modern folktales, the internet has multiplied it. But before 1983 or so, no one seems to have spread the tale, at least not in writing, and this despite the fact that there were other speculations about it.

The fact that the flag dates back doesnt bring the stories about how it came to look like that back in the past with it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you write to the Turks and Caicos National Museum about that to settle the issue once and for all, especially since they reportedly have that igloo flag. Brandmeistertalk 19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anf I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Turks_and_Caicos_Islands&oldid=1206729568"