Talk:Coat of arms of Newfoundland and Labrador

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

Elk or Moose?[edit]

  • In Europe, Elk is the animal known in North America as the Moose (Alces alces).
  • In North America, Elk refers to the Wapiti (Cervus elaphus), known as the Red Deer in Europe.

We should use North American animal terminology. Can we rename this ambiguous elk to either moose or wapiti? I'm curious to know which animal it is.--Sonjaaa 12:59, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hm, interesting information here:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/coaNFLD.htm --Sonjaaa 13:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

The original grant uses the word Elk which in England had the meaning of Moose. Without doubt the Garter King of Arms in 1637 used English normal terminology. I am changing the link from Elk to Moose. Btw, neither elk nor moose was on Nfld at this period of time. In any case, the animal in the crest looks like a moose. Although the original drawing is more ambigious. Weatherford (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nl-coat-thb.gif[edit]

Image:Nl-coat-thb.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nl-coat-thb.gif[edit]

Image:Nl-coat-thb.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shield image[edit]

Barring the provision of an image of the entire coat of arms, the Old French shield (escutcheon) image is more preferable to the Modern French (square-like) shield. There are a number of reasons. First of all, the dimensions and general appearance of the OF shield image – which is actually lifted from the lieutenant-governor's flag image already in Wikipedia -- more closely resembles the shield per the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador website at http://www.heritage.nf.ca/facts3.html. Roux has indicated that the NF style is more ‘accurate’, but has not demonstrated why or how this conclusion is made – please do.

Secondly, a perusal online will reveal few if any shields for Newfoundland and Labrador in the NF style and, thus, its inclusion herein is contrary to the usual practice of reflecting common usage.

Lastly, at least one other user has removed this image earlier. So, arguably, a consensus doesn’t support it. Please demonstrate on the talk page why the NF style shield image -- which at its face may be unfamiliar to a visitor -- should be retained in favour of the current more accurate rendition. Otherwise, the current image shall stand. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, that's not how it works. You need to demonstrate why it should be changed. That's how Wikipedia works. The simple fact is, the image you are inserting includes horribly distorted charges in the 3rd and 4th quarters. While this is technically correct as the image still follows (however haphazardly) the blazon, it is not the best depiction of what the escutcheon should look like. The shape of the escutcheon, as long as it conforms to basic rules of heraldry--which the current version does--is immaterial. //roux   05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: that is not how it works -- you, wanting to retain the material, must justify its inclusion. And you haven't. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, you're wrong; two, I did. Sorry about that, but you will need to learn how to edit collegially here. That includes when you want to make a change that is contested it is incumbent upon you to justify why the change should be made. You can choose to learn this or not, it's up to you, but this is turning into a pattern of behaviour for you which will in the fullness of time lead to temporary or permanent revocation of your editing privileges. I don't want that, you obviously don't want that, so learn to cooperate. //roux   05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescending bluster has been read. As you were reminded before, BRD is not policy, whereas arguably ignoring all rules is. Do not use that as a crutch to justify poor and patterned editorial decisions. If you have nothing (else) to add regarding the impropriety of the NF shield image, there's little more to discuss. Bosonic dressing (talk)
Your insults, actually, are what make this discussion pointless. This is also somewhat of a pattern with you, if memory serves. I suggest you take some time to think about 'common sense' as it applies to guidelines, which should inexorably lead you to understand that following guidelines that enhance collaboration is a really good idea. As it stands, the way Wikipedia works is that if a new edit is contested, it is incumbent upon the person trying to make the change to justify the change. You cannot claim this is incorrect; this is how Wikipedia quite demonstrably works. You can try to ignore it as much as you like, but--returning to that whole common sense thing--you will find that IAR only applies when you are unquestionably improving the encyclopedia. Your change is not unquestioned, it is not an improvement, and you need to justify why the image should be changed. It should not, I explained quite clearly why above. I'm really sorry that you're not getting your way, but you really need to learn how to edit collaboratively--that means realising that just because you want to make a change doesn't mean it's correct. Again, while the image you are trying to use is technically correct, it is a horrible distortion of the charges in the 3rd and 4th quarters. That is not good for our readers. When we present images we should aim to use the clearest and most accurate image possible. Yours fails on both counts. I trust this is over, now. Cheers. //roux   05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Escuse me to be a little late in this discution. 1st, the form of the shield have little value in heraldry, they have none bad or good form. The advantage of Modern French was more easy for Zorlot, the creator of the shield, to make the shield to respect the description. The cross modified by Bosonic dressing is too much thin for a good heraldic cross. The cross should have the 1/3 of the width of the shield. --Fralambert (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coat of arms of Newfoundland and Labrador. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of Newfoundland and Labrador. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Newfoundland_and_Labrador&oldid=1200994356"