Jump to content

Talk:Borough of Stockton-on-Tees

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russ London (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 15 November 2022 (→Coat of Arms). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Borough of Stockton-on-Tees/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Details of council set-up would be useful
Keith D 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borough of Stockton-on-Tees. 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).

  • 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) 07:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Borough of Stockton-on-Tees. 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) 18:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Stockton on Tees Borough and Town Page

Given apparently Middlesbrough isn't allowed a borough article. I think we should merge Stockton on Tees Borough page with the town article and have villages and towns listed in a wards tab. Then that solves the argument. RailwayJG (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the Hartlepool and Darlington mergers you proposed but not Stockton. Mainly because Yarm which has a built-up area population > 10,000 is in the borough but is outside Stockton's built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Coat of Arms of Stockton-on-Tees[1]

I recently added a free vector emblazonment of the Coat of arms of Stockton with this source [1] for the blazon. User:Roxy the dog reverted claiming it wasn't the image in the source (which is true). Apparently, my explanation of my position was gobbeldy gook, so I'll try to be clearer here.

A blazon is a textual description and is the thing that is actually granted to Stockton bough council. This is what the source is for and not the specific image.

An emblazonment is a specific rendering of a coat of arms. Wikipedia prefers Free emblazonments over Non-free *official* emblazonments. Wikimedia users own renderings being used in Wikipedia is not new, or unique to here (see Armorial of county councils of England, Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, and many more) this isn't heraldic hand waving this is a core aspect of heraldry.

I can't even find a source that the current image is from Stockton council. The file page claims it is, but it also claims it's a logo which it's not. Most of these English civil non-free coats of arms images were scraped from civicheraldry.co.uk which seems to be the case here (http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/north_east.html). The site also doesn’t credit to anybody (as they normally do for those they got from local councils).

So, we have an non-free image of suspect providence and a free-replacement of equal heraldic value. I reiterate that you can see the blazon at the given source and that is what the sources is for, not the image. WP:NFC dictates that if we have a free content replacement, we must replace it. Roxy the dog obviously believes that the vector emblazonment is not a suitable replacement. I think the overwhelming use of free user-made emblazonments on Wikipedia makes this position silly.

I would love to know the thoughts of people more experienced with Wikipedia heraldry than me on this. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. - Roxy the dog 08:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear not to understand the point at issue – this has nothing to do with either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The definitive version of any coat of arms is the blazon, the textual description. Any artistic rendition which correctly reflects the blazon is accurate, and most coats of arms can be depicted with minor variations according to the whim of the artist. If you want to cite wikipedia policy, a more relevant guideline would be WP:NOFULLTEXT, which discourages lengthy direct quotes (which may breach copyright) and encourages paraphrase instead. In this case, a high-quality, high-res and free-use artistic rendition, as long as it conforms to the blazon, is much to be preferred to a low-res image of dubious provenance. GrindtXX (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation, and Cakes, both both seem to say that, even though the image is unsourced, as long as it matches a written description somewhere (the blazon, yes?), it is self definingly OK for wikipedia. You said - Any artistic rendition which correctly defines the blazon is accurate - which I find interesting. Do you know if any of our policies support you? WP:NOFULLTEXT is certainly not pertinant, as we are dealing with an image. Is there a Wikipedia equivalent of "User:Dragon King Of Arms" - Roxy the dog 14:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing WP:NOFULLTEXT as directly relevant to this case, but more by way of analogy, to make the point that blindly cutting-and-pasting your source isn't always best practice, and that in certain contexts (including heraldry), reworking the source is often to be preferred, both to avoid copyright issues, and to produce a version that is better fit within the context in which you're using it. No, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that directly supports this point in relation to coats of arms – though I agree there probably should be one, because this isn't the first time this sort of dispute has arisen. But out in the real world, it's a basic tenet of heraldry, frequently repeated, that a coat of arms is defined by its blazon, not by any particular artistic representation. The blazon isn't just some random form of words: in the case of a post-medieval coat of arms, it's normally a direct quotation from the grant of arms that legally authorises their use. (A grant of arms generally also includes an image; but in the unlikely event of any discrepancy between the two, the blazon would take priority.) So, per our article on Blazon: "A coat of arms or flag is therefore primarily defined not by a picture but rather by the wording of its blazon". Or see here: "Blazon: a definitive description of a composition of arms, crests and other heraldic emblems. ... Any depiction of arms is subordinate to its blazon." Or here: "When granted, the form of the arms will not be governed by the painting of the arms but by the verbal description of them in the text known as the blazon, which accompanies the painting." Or here: "so long as an example stays true to the blazon, then it, and all of the others like (and unlike) it, is a rendering of that coat of arms." GrindtXX (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that you are correct in heraldic terms, but nothing here persuades me that WP:OR has a special exemption for Heraldry. Who decides? The College of Arms? -Roxy the dog 18:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides whether a paraphrase accurately reflects its source text? Answer: anyone who is literate. Similarly, anyone who is heraldically literate can see whether any particular artistic rendition of a coat of arms accurately reflects the official blazon. This is emphatically not WP:OR. GrindtXX (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could decide then? How do we decide on who is literate enough? Am I? Is Cakelot? Are you? Roxy the dog 19:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, you could decide. If you would care to point to any element in Cakelot1's rendition of the arms that you think is at odds with the cited blazon, we might have something to discuss. Until then, I don't see that we do. GrindtXX (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have certainly made mistakes in the past and corrected when it's pointed out. This happened to me with my rendering of the arms of London Borough of Lewisham when Russ London pointed out that I'd got the colours the wrong way round (c:User talk:Cakelot1#Coat of arms of the London Borough of Lewisham). Since Wikipedia's coat of arms are generally vector images it makes it very easy to correct them if they don't conform to the source.
In terms, knowing what the blazon says, while it might not be obvious to somebody unfamiliar with blazonry you can always google the element's of the blazon to find out what they mean. Many of these terms even have Wikipedia pages dedicated to them. The shield's blazon of this arms as an example is: "Barry wavy of six Argent and Azure (six wavy horizontal stripes of white and blue) overall a Chevron Pean (on top of which is a chevron coloured with a black and yellow ermine fur)". I could go over the other elements if you want, but I'm confident that the rendering is supported by the blazon at the source. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cakelot
After I pointed out an error in your arms of the London Borough of Lewisham, which you mention above and which you quickly corrected, you asked me if I'd mind checking for problems with any of your other emblazonments. In light of the debate above, I thought I'd mention that I see no problem at all with your coat of arms of Stockton. And it's clear that your vector is technically far superior to the low-res JPG that has been reverted to the page.
Also, while I realise that "any artistic rendition which correctly reflects the blazon is accurate", as GrindtXX says, it must surely count for something that your creation bears a closer resemblance to the version of the coat of arms used by the council itself (see this page of the council's website: https://www.stockton.gov.uk/Civic-History) than does the present, weirdly-coloured JPG. Russ London (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have any policy based answers for me? You guys appear to be saying "it's OK Rox, we are following Heraldic principles, it is fine for editors to make images themselves based on a written description, we've been doing it for years (have you?) and had no problems".
It is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Are all of our articles with Coats of Arms for UK towns and cities equally tainted? I'm gobsmacked.
I also note that there are many other editor made heraldic images / Coats of Arms unsourced in this way all over the project. It gets worse! -Roxy the dog 16:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian to know whether you're right and everyone else is wrong, or vice versa.
However, immediately below the WP:SYNTH policy to which you provide a link is a section entitled 'What is not original research'. In its first sub-section, WP:IMAGEOR, editors are encouraged to upload their own images. The sub-section states: 'Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy.' This seems more relevant to the subject in question than the text-related policies. Russ London (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog, Yes most coat of arms on Wikipedia are user created, not just in English civic heraldry but basically everywhere around the world. The arms on United Kingdom are created by user:sodacan, The arms on Calais are created by User:Spedona, Rome by User:Spedona, and so on and so on for ever. There are multiple communities across Wikimedia (fr:Projet:Blasons, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, requests at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop) that have been making original vector versions of CoA and flags, that are used basically every where, based on sourced information, for decades. If you think that we should change all those flags and arms back to official non-frree PNG versions, then I think we should have this discussion with a lot more people involved. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The same argument could be made about most maps and diagrams on Wikipedia. The map at Clash of Civilizations is not the image from the source because it's from the original book and thus non-free. What is sourced is the underlining information not the particular rendition which would almost certainly be WP:NFC. In this case the sourced info is to the blazon and since, as has been pointed out, every rendition that follows the blazon is of equal heraldic weight, WP:NFC commands us to replace it. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Roxy the dog 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only pointing out the fact that this has been standard widespread standard practice for decades demonstrates that most editors don't see user-made renderings of sourced information as in breach of either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and on the country see it as an important way of compiling with WP:NFC and the goal of making a free-content encyclopaedia. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Image use policy#Diagrams and other images: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work." That doesn't refer explicitly to coats of arms, but the principle is the same: the blazon is "available data", and as long as it is accurately represented in graphic form, the individual artist has discretion over the incidental details. Combine that with WP:NFC, and there is absolutely no doubt that free user-generated images are to be preferred to images of uncertain copyright taken from external sources. Roxy the dog's problem is that you still appear not to have grasped the principle that a coat of arms is not a logo. GrindtXX (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. - Roxy the dog 10:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, I said earlier that 'I'm not a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian to know whether you're right and everyone else is wrong, or vice versa.' Like you, I have no special knowledge of this subject. (I previously counselled Cakelot1 on the subject of the Lewisham coat of arms because I'm a London expert not a heraldry buff.) However, the points made by Cakelot1 and GrindtXX have now convinced me that you are wrong. I see from your talk page that you often challenge prevailing orthodoxies (nothing wrong in that!) but that you will 'always (eventually) go with consensus'. If you're not yet willing to concede on this matter, what more will it take for you to 'go with consensus'? Russ London (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some policy based guidance, which does not appear to exist, would be a good start. Nobody wants to show me anything remotely like policy. It appears that Heraldry has driven a coach and horses through wiki principles of sourcing. -Roxy the dog 10:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cakelot, I can't be sure, but Roxy's last comment sounds like a reluctant acceptance that there is (at the very least) no policy that prohibits you from adding your emblazonment to the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees page in place of the non-free, low-res coat of arms. Personally, I hope you'll now try again and that Roxy won't revert it this time. Russ London (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Stockton-on-Tees - Coat of arms (crest) of Stockton-on-Tees". Heraldry of the World. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borough_of_Stockton-on-Tees&oldid=1122015370"