Heraldry and vexillology File‑class

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg 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 articles File This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Canada: Governments File‑class

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles File This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This file is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

@Stefan2:, can you point out where at this discussion you pointed to it says the image cannot have a fair use argument for use on Monarchy of Canada? I read through it and could see nothing about denying fair use of this image on all articles except Arms of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Miesianiacal. The original close from three years ago was that there was no suitable free-use argument for any other article except Arms of Canada at that time, and was a broad generalization that did not look into any one article specifically. The close most certainly was not that users' free-use templates or justifications for this image on any article are banned from ever being made in perpetuity. trackratte (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that not allowing use of this image in Monarchy of Canada is improper, as the arms are officially registered as the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, not merely the "Arms of Canada." All arms "belonging" to a Commonwealth nation or to a province or territory thereof (e.g. the provinces and territories of Canada), are properly termed the "Arms of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of ..." even if they are not registered as such. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31, the image violates WP:NFCC#1 on that page as the image is a coat of arms. Coats of arms automatically violate WP:NFCC#1, per c:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blazon). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, yet, there are coats of arms all over Wikipedia. This image is used in Wikipedia. So, what you now claim doesn't make sense, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, Commons essays or guidelines are irrelevant here. They discuss what is generally acceptable for upload to Commons, not what English WP may or may not include. For example uploading copyrighted images is prohibited on Commons, but allowed here, etc so citing off-WP practices is simply a red herring.

NFCC#1 supports the use of the symbol of the Monarchy of Canada at the Monarchy of Canada page, as there is no free-use equivalent of a state's symbol if that symbol is non-free. While discussing the finer tenets of heraldry and blazons may be useful on Commons, it is irrelevant when discussing state symbols within an encyclopedia, as the only way to render state symbols (a precise logo) is by using the specific image legally approved and adopted for use by that state (at least in Canada). For example, you cannot tell Americans that this is their flag any more than you can tell Canadians that this is their flag, any more than you can tell Canadians that this is their coat of arms, even though all three of those images conform to their respective blazons. But as I said, just because a user makes their own creative interpretation of a state symbol that conforms to the textual description of that image (blazon), that might make it a good heraldry hobbyist's drawing, but that does not make it an official state symbol/precise logo. It is not the job of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to tell entire nations what their official symbols/logos are. Instead, the job of Wikipedia is to accurately and unbiasedly portray fact.

Particularly when it comes to these particular symbols as they are emotionally charged. Using this flag to represent all Canadians, and to represent Canada at the Canada page for example, is insulting as it is a purposefully misrepresentation of the actual symbol/specific representative logo, and completely undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

Canadian state symbols are very specific drawings, made by professional heralds and artists, whose very exact drawings go through a legal process, and where the precise drawing is legally approved by the state (personally signed by the Queen) for adoption as an official symbol/logo use to represent the state (as you can see here, here, and here, as well as in the top left corner of the document here). Any amateur or user's creative interpretation of this legally approved symbol/logo does not an official symbol make. In fact, even a professional artist's rendering of the Canadian flag or the Canadian Arms does not make it the actual flag or arms of Canada until that specific drawing is signed as "approved" by the Queen of Canada (ie officially approved and adopted according to Canadian law).

So, in summary, the only valid link you cite is the WP deletion. However, that only shows that in July of 2013 an admin found that there was no acceptable free-use argument other than at Arms of Canada at that time. Not that a user can use such a decision to suppress any new developments, suppress the submission of new facts, or suppress new arguments for the rest of eternity. trackratte (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms are defined by their blazon, and one drawing based on a blazon is just as correct as another drawing based on the same blazon. For that reason, coats of arms automatically fail WP:NFCC#1 unless there is discussion about a specific drawing of the coat of arms. User-created drawings are used all over the place. Check for example the municipalities listed in {{Municipalities of Stockholm County}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely missed the point. We are not talking about heraldry, we are talking about very specific state logos and flags. To translate this to your Commons example that you cited above, "There is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics, this would be a confusion with logos (where the representation must be the official one)". As we can see, there certainly is a legally approved and adopted official Arms of Canada (logo), that the Queen of Canada must approve the specific logo apart from any blazon (here, here, and here), and thus talk of blazons are completely irelevent here as this is not a discussion about what is acceptable hobby heraldry, but about a specific set of logos and flags. If we were discussing heraldry, then you could go right ahead and say that this is the American flag because it's a drawing based on a blazon and is therefore correct, but we're not and you can't. trackratte (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any comprehensible explanation of why this image can have either no fair-use or fair-use on only one article. As such, I suggest the fair-use argument for Monarchy of Canada be reinstated. Then it can be seen if the argument itself holds up. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: You misunderstand what is denoted by the rule you are invoking. The rule states, in its entirety, the following: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." You are taking this in its most strict and literal interpretation, which leads directly to every single, non-free image in Wikipedia being in violation of it! Since creating up a similacrum is technically feasible for practically every image under the sun, your interpretation would mean that Wikipedia should have no original, non-free images at all. Does this sound logical to you? -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As lengthly discussions have shown, there is no free equivalent available. So I don't understand the issue. Should a free equivalent become available, then obviously that should be used. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We keep having the same problem....that is many seem not to understand that an "official logo" vs "heraldry blazon" is not the same thing. A formal description of a coat of arms is not the same as a registered trademark in any world...legal or other . This is a huge problem all over Wikipedia...that is user generated national symbols based on blazons in place of official logos. "Home-made versions" of national symbols is simply not what we are looking for in an encyclopaedia....we are looking for accuracy. --Moxy (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So.... can this image be used in the infobox at Monarchy of Canada? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]