Talk:Coat of arms of Wigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] county borough arms

If there is anyone in the Wigan area who knows where there is depiction of the county borough arms they can photograph, it would make a big difference to the article? Are there any preserved Wigan trams or buses in some museum with the CoA on? We used to have an image of the arms but it was deleted: I presume for copyright reasons. I have two or three copies in books but they are definitely copyright. Lozleader 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The old Wigan RLFC, and I think, Wigan Warriors R(L?)FC, used and use un-differenced Council Arms, as a badge. I do not know what the authorization was, or is for such use. Generic Character 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Image:Wigan coat of arms.JPG was deleted from Wigan, Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and Coat of arms of Wigan and replaced with {{seal}} - which is a template intended for image summaries, not for articles. Is there any reason why this image should not be used? MRSC • Talk 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The {{seal}} copyright tag at Image:Wigan coat of arms.JPG states:
It is believed that the use of images of seals to illustrate the government or agency in question on 
the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit 
Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
If the use of an image of the Wigan coat of arms to illustate an article about the Wigan coat of arms doesn't qualify as fair use, I don't know what does. The image is now orphaned, which means it will be deleted in due course unless it is used somewhere.
If there is doubt about the copyright status of the image that should be stated on the image page. Lozleader 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The image presently used is obviously a "cut and paste" job from an undisclosed origin, and thus is used without authorisation. The “Arms” are in current use by – and the property of – Wigan Metropolitan Council. If an image is wanted, then a low definition image must be found that is not copyrighted - or one must be made from scratch as an illustration. It is the responsibility of the up-loader of the image to prove fare use - and not the responsibility of another editor to prove copyright through some arcane procedure of wiki-lawyering. The present image is thus correctly “orphaned”, ready for deletion. Generic Character 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
ah, I see you read Wikipedia:Copyright. now you may wish to read Wikipedia:Fair use. There's a wealth of difference between copy and pasting text from random websites on the internet without attribution, which is patently unacceptable, and using fair use images of arms. Please in fact read the template Template:Seal that you placed on the image.
Further more actually "a low definition image must be found that is not copyrighted" makes no sense. In general fair use, low definition or not copyrighted. I've never heard that non-copyrighted images have to be low-definition.
Also, you might want to disclose whether we got all your instances of plagiarism. Morwen - Talk 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the copyright of the image rests with the College of Arms, not the council. Not that the College ever enforces its rights.

I had an exchange of e-mails with an officer at the college in 2002, in which he stated:

  • In terms of heraldic law "it is generally true that the arms of a local authority can be used for illustration purposes so long as they are clearly identified as the arms of that authority."
  • Councils do not hold the copyright in paintings of armorial bearings prepared at the College.
  • In practice the local authorities are free to make such use as they wish of the artwork supplied by the College.

Lozleader 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Is this your own original work, or an un-referenced, and thus plagiarized, opinion? Generic Character 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More wikilawyering? Quoting from the tag,"To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. As well, if this image is available under a free licence, please also add the appropriate free licence tag". As to plagiarism - prove the charge as with intent or retract it. Any supposed "plagiarism" alleged to be my edits are unintentional, and so by definition I cannot point them out. It is probably the case that the local cabal over-zealously jumped in before I could cite a source. It very much looks like some cabals of people like to enforce regulations, but think cabals are above the law. Generic Character 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does “19:20, 7 November 2006 MRSC” on the disputed Image talk page prove intent to hide an infringement? Generic Character 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the image should be deleted, please follow the procedures and use the tags listed at WP:IFD. It will then be assessed and action accordingly taken. Lozleader 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The cabal operating here sure likes to tell people to do such-and-such. Why not follow your own advice, or prove the image otherwise oh sage o'wiki? Generic Character 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It would help things along if you weren't so rude. Lozleader has proven his detailed knowledge of this subject with a range of valuable additions over time. MRSC • Talk 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So you (MRSC) submit that Lozleader uses his own origional work? Being an expert caries no weight, as origional work is not to be used on wiki. Please cite sources, thanks. Also please do not blanket blank ongoing dispute reports, even ones posted “wrongly”. Thanks again. Generic Character 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Image deleted pending statusGeneric Character 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC) It was a suggestion, not an order. I've found the process useful in the past when I've come across images that look "iffy". The uploader gets a message on their talk page and the problem is either sorted source/copyright-wise or the image deleted. Everybody happy.
Incidentally I've just discovered this image also exists (in a sort of copyright limbo):
Lozleader 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RE "Images reported". Done and Done. Generic Character 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced

Why has this been added (again)? This article has a variety of sources indicated. MRSC • Talk 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall I tag each individual instance ( an example here Generic Character 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ), or put the general tag back? Generic Character 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you aright, you are objecting to the lack of footnotes showing which sources each paragraph is drawn from? Morwen - Talk
I did not object, I asked a polite question. Another editor may, or may not, want to execute the response, if one is given. - or indeed act if a response not given. I may or may not act upon any response, myself. Generic Character 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
an example here looks like either original work, or plagiarism. I'm asking a question by adding "fact" to it, in good faith that a citation can indeed be found. Note I did not assume bad faith and delete or “yell” plagiarist at the editor who posted it. Generic Character 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It says it was "blazoned as" that, and it is clearlly italicised to mark it as a quotation. The blazon is the official, formal designation of the arms. If anyone holds copyright it is likely to be the College of Arms, but since it is the only way to express the coat of arms in text, then quoting it as such, in its entirety, is acceptable, as is done so here. It could be contested that the mechanical nature of the heraldic language here makes it ineligible for copyright. The fact that we can't pass off other people's writings as our own, doesn't preclude us from using quotations. The two blazons are the only instances of quoting here. Morwen - Talk 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RE directly above. (too many indents to add easily). So add a reference, or remove, or do nothing. This is only a polite answer, not an order. Generic Character 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They ultimately derive from the actual documents issued by the King of Arms, so that is the source. I've added footnotes that link you directly to civic-heraldry, which also have quoted from the King of Arms. Morwen - Talk 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)