Wilhelm meis (talk | contribs) →Discussion: reply |
parallel move requests removed |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
*My reason for the move was because the old title, Seal (device), was not specific enough: [[Seal (mechanical)]] is a devise (and a poor title, BTW, too). I fail to see why "emblem" covers the die while "impression" not. As for the move without discussion, last time I edited, this was a wiki, isn't it? If you are not happy, just put forth your opinion, no need to point fingers, as if I did something outrageous. [[User:Timurite|Timurite]] ([[User talk:Timurite|talk]]) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
*My reason for the move was because the old title, Seal (device), was not specific enough: [[Seal (mechanical)]] is a devise (and a poor title, BTW, too). I fail to see why "emblem" covers the die while "impression" not. As for the move without discussion, last time I edited, this was a wiki, isn't it? If you are not happy, just put forth your opinion, no need to point fingers, as if I did something outrageous. [[User:Timurite|Timurite]] ([[User talk:Timurite|talk]]) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Dictionary.com can be useful as a quick reference, but it is not the most reliable source and certainly has little bearing on this discussion. As to 'putting forth our opinions', that is precisely what has been done. You don't have to get defensive just because some other editors thought the move was hasty. We could have requested that it be moved back, but we didn't. I don't disagree that it should have been moved, just where it got moved to. Do you have a specific reason for objecting to [[Seal (emblem)]]? I don't see how Seal (symbol) works any better than Seal (emblem). An ''emblem'' (coming from Middle English, from Latin ''emblēma'', inlaid or mosaic work) is a design that is representative of someone or something, whereas a ''symbol'' (coming from Middle English, from Latin ''symbolum'', from Greek ''sýmbolon'', sign) is a sign (which may be visual, written, or immaterial) representing something else. A symbol need not be an emblem, just anything - ''anything'' - that represents something else. I think ''symbol'' is too broad a disambiguator. [[User:Wilhelm meis|Wilhelm_meis]] ([[User talk:Wilhelm meis|talk]]) 08:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
::Dictionary.com can be useful as a quick reference, but it is not the most reliable source and certainly has little bearing on this discussion. As to 'putting forth our opinions', that is precisely what has been done. You don't have to get defensive just because some other editors thought the move was hasty. We could have requested that it be moved back, but we didn't. I don't disagree that it should have been moved, just where it got moved to. Do you have a specific reason for objecting to [[Seal (emblem)]]? I don't see how Seal (symbol) works any better than Seal (emblem). An ''emblem'' (coming from Middle English, from Latin ''emblēma'', inlaid or mosaic work) is a design that is representative of someone or something, whereas a ''symbol'' (coming from Middle English, from Latin ''symbolum'', from Greek ''sýmbolon'', sign) is a sign (which may be visual, written, or immaterial) representing something else. A symbol need not be an emblem, just anything - ''anything'' - that represents something else. I think ''symbol'' is too broad a disambiguator. [[User:Wilhelm meis|Wilhelm_meis]] ([[User talk:Wilhelm meis|talk]]) 08:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. I've removed the parallel move requests below. If you have an opinion on what the article's title should be, this section is the place to discuss it. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 11:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Requested move== |
|||
{{movereq|Seal (symbol)}} |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
*'''SUpport'''. After looking into the dictionary.com, I see that a general word would be "'''symbol'''", not "emblem". Therefore I suggest the move.. [[User:Timurite|Timurite]] ([[User talk:Timurite|talk]]) 04:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Requested move== |
|||
{{movereq|Seal (authentification)}} |
|||
===Survey=== |
|||
*'''Support'''. All seals discussed in this article have the same purpose: authentification of the authorship/ownership/correctness/vlidity. Unlike other suggestions, this one does not give an impression of restriction to '''result''' (impression) or '''tool''' (die): it addresses the most distinctive trait:the ultimate purpose. [[User:Timurite|Timurite]] ([[User talk:Timurite|talk]]) 04:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:02, 29 July 2009
Heraldry and vexillology B‑class | |||||||
|
Someone with a more solid historical grounding in contract law than I have should probably add a section on how seals acted as a substitute for consideration. It is my understanding that a seal on a document would previously substitute for consideration, and thus create an enforceable promise without there having to be any bargain for that promise. I have also been told that consideration is, itself, a replacement for the seal.
If anyone knows more about the history, please add it. I discovered that this article even existed here in a search for a clear answer. Thanks. Ari 06:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The NSA seal page includes the following text:
This image shows a seal. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.
I came to this page expecting to find information on such restrictions, but didn't find anything
--Tom W.M. 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Request For Administrator Decision on Reinsertion of My External Link
In my former "Seals (device)" link Not All Online Authority Seals are Credible that used to be in the "Metaphorical Use" section where the "Good Housekeeping Seal" is noted (maybe that was the wrong sub-section?), my now deleted link has a link within to Ben Edleman's "Certifications and Site Trustworthiness" which says: "Some sites that are widely regarded as extremely trustworthy present such seals. But those same seals feature prominently on sites that seek to scam users -- whether through spyware infections, spam, or other unsavory practices." Ben's "Adverse Selection in Online "Trust" Certificates" has many valid points." I guess I was hoping that my utilization of Ben's reliable source, "significant reputation" ( http://www.benedelman.org/media/ ) by linking to him would be enough "authority" to have my post allowed. I feel this online consumer protection information adds substantive value to Wikipedia and it can not be found anywhere else on the page.
But, if I can't put a link to my blog post there, can I at least put an external link to Ben Edelman's Harvard document? Thank you. Brokerblogger 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quoting notable sources on your site doesn't automatically make your site notable or an authority. Given Edleman's credentials, I doubt anyone would object to a direct link to his site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the following
"The Koreans invented both paper and the printing press centuries before they were invented again in Europe."
because, according to corresponding wikipedia entries, the Koreans didn't invent paper and print press. 68.145.105.91 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
'Bearing arms'?
I deleated this phrase from the 'signet ring' section because it didn't seem to make any sense:
However, there has been a trend to assume arms in the British isles given the recent surge of popularity in genealogy, and so many wearers are actually not entitled to bear arms legally.
If anyone understands it and wants to rephrase it that would be good.
Tkos 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Phonetics
Could somebody please add how the word "signet" is pronounced? It would be most helpful. 14:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
bulla and lead
Bulla has no connection to the Latin for lead, which is plumbum, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel D'huyvetters (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Faux Wax
In recent years there has been a welcome addition of faux wax this was created by wax-works for high speed production of wax seals used as embellishments. The original faux wax was created using a blend of Scottish wax and silicon bases. This new wax is now made by extrusion and can be heated using a low temperature glue gun.
Recent move
Since someone recently decided to move this article without any discussion, I think we should discuss the most appropriate name for the article. The editor who moved it most likely did so because s/he felt that seal more often refers to the (usually) wax impression than the metal device that makes the impression. I would suggest that if Seal (device) insufficiently covers the topic, then so does Seal (impression), if not more so. If I had to come up with a better suggestion, I would say Seal (heraldry) indicates the context of the word without tying itself up in this sort of chicken-or-egg question. But I am open to other suggestions. Any thoughts, anyone? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seal (heraldry) does not strike me as a good choice, because most seal impressions in modern times are made by government officials or ordinary private persons from eastern Asia (the latter group uses chops). I don't think members of either of these groups would think there is any connection between the impressions they make and heraldry. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- The seal is viewed by many heraldic authorities as the original heraldic device, and the medieval coat of arms its direct descendant. Whether those who use them nowadays realize it or not is irrelevant to the fact that modern seals used by government authorities are classically heraldic in both their form and function (and usually in their appearance as well). The Asian seals used today also tie directly to the Asian forms of heraldry used in feudal times (see Category:Japanese heraldry for some of these forms). The connection to heraldry is so strong, I doubt anyone could successfully argue that seals are unheraldic. Be that as it may, I am honestly open to any better suggestions. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mr. meis's argument should not apply to the title of an article. After a reader locates an article by reading the title, we can then educate the reader about the heraldic origin of seals, but if the reader never finds the article, he/she will not be educated. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- And we have yet to see any other suggestions. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. If seals are essentially heraldic in their nature, origin, and use, it doesn't matter if *someone* doesn't know it. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about heraldry may have just as much difficulty finding Lion (heraldry), Eagle (heraldry), Crown (heraldry), Star (heraldry), and Escutcheon (heraldry), but that doesn't mean these should all be renamed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- The heraldic lion, eagle, etc., appear as they do because of their heraldic origin. Seals are made in the manner they are largely because making a die or rubber stamp is perceived as being a bit difficult and thus documents containing the impressions from dies or rubber stamps are perceived as being a bit more reliable than other documents. So modern seals are associated in the mind of modern readers more with document security than heraldry. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It occurred to me that "Seal (heraldry)" has enough going for it to at least be a redirect to this article, so I have created the redirect. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should we consider Seal (documents) or Seal (authentication) something like that? I would avoid Seal (security) because it sounds more like the plastic or metal seals stamped with a serial number that are used on government and other locks for tampering evidence. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Better yet, how about Seal (sigil)? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seal (symbol)? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see Seal (heraldry) working. I think (emblem) might be the best, but not perfect. (authentication) is a close second in my mind. I didn't really mind (device) or (impression) since I think that there's not going to be a perfect solution here. I think the best option might simply to be to go with one regardlesss of imperfection, and then work hard for a few mintues to make sure hatnotes, redirects etc. are set up correctly. You're more than welcome to buzz me if you need an admin, although obviously CSD exist for this purpose. - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Seal (sigillography) be better than Seal (heraldry)? — Kpalion(talk) 15:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Sigillography" is such an obscure word that it is not listed in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed.). I think that makes it unacceptable as part of an article title. The article Sigillography is of necessity given that title; I sure hope there are suitable redirects and wikilinks from related articles. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, "sigillography" is a bit off-center for an article title. At this point, I'm leaning toward Seal (emblem) or Seal (authentication). It seems to me that emblem is more an indication of form and authentication more an indication of function. I think Seal (emblem) is elegant in its simplicity and disambiguity. I think (emblem) works pretty well as a disambiguator in this instance. What do you guys think? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Sigillography" is such an obscure word that it is not listed in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed.). I think that makes it unacceptable as part of an article title. The article Sigillography is of necessity given that title; I sure hope there are suitable redirects and wikilinks from related articles. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Seal (sigillography) be better than Seal (heraldry)? — Kpalion(talk) 15:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note to ALL
I added the preview on the seal category: Category:Seals, noting that the "Seal" is the 'picture'. The seal DEVICE is not needed today, since a "Seal"-picture, can be made on a PC, the Computer. ....So it is NOT surprising to me that somebody "changed the name". The first seals were "Impression seals", (in pottery, clay, etc, (Mesopotamian balls?) the most common then became the "Cylinder seal", unless they were first. They might have been first, since the story presented, depended on the size of the seal, and its intricateness. I don't care what name is appropriate, but seal (device) is GONE, and wax is only a late development in Human History. The first were clay, and pots. (Or Stone seals, engraved, inscriptions; It now dawns on me that all the cartouches of the Pharaohs are actually a form of the Seal (impression), or Seal (emblem).) I personally am "Charmed" by the Luwian hieroglyphs "King seals. Those are the ones I would personally like to see an article on. (From 111-114-(July26-2009)Degree, (northwest SonoranDesert ArizonaUSA)... --Mmcannis (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Mmcannis, but you are mistaken about the device not being needed today due to PCs. Just one example: Florida land surveyors are required to use "an impression-type metal seal" for paper and Mylar documents. Surveyors are allowed to use a registered electronic seal when documents are transmitted electronically.http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0472/SEC025.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0472->Section%20025#0472.025
- As an additional example, look at any state's requirements for obtaining a driver's license or ID card. You will most likely find that one of the documents accepted for proof of age and lawful presence in the United States is a government-issued birth certificate with a raised seal. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously correct. I was just explaining what I helped cause to happen by adding the info to the Seal Category. Its (the seal) origins may have been for authentication, or ownership, but as Cylinder seals, or for example Minoan Seals, they immediately became used sociologically, and iconographically. ...They became a means for personal, and societal expression. (And thank goodness). The [seal (devices)] could still be a good article; In fact the original un-Renamed article has all the type references. But they are all "Modern", post 1000 BC; and like I suggest, even the cartouche of the pharaoh is a form of "seal (impression/emblem/authentication)". The issue is obviously very complex since the "seal" can now be made graphically in mind space on a computer.
As for "heraldy" and "wax" they are all post-origins of the seal, and probably could/should have separate developed articles. (This "Integration/Differentiation", and MERGE stuff can get out of hand.) The complexity of the "Seal" shows the huge topic this really is. (I recenty 'Had' to get a new drivers license,) (and don't forget the hologram, or microchip-type seals.... (comments from HotArizonaUSA)..Mmcannis (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously correct. I was just explaining what I helped cause to happen by adding the info to the Seal Category. Its (the seal) origins may have been for authentication, or ownership, but as Cylinder seals, or for example Minoan Seals, they immediately became used sociologically, and iconographically. ...They became a means for personal, and societal expression. (And thank goodness). The [seal (devices)] could still be a good article; In fact the original un-Renamed article has all the type references. But they are all "Modern", post 1000 BC; and like I suggest, even the cartouche of the pharaoh is a form of "seal (impression/emblem/authentication)". The issue is obviously very complex since the "seal" can now be made graphically in mind space on a computer.
Requested move
Seal (impression) → Seal (emblem) — This page was moved without discussion, and subsequent discussion points toward a consensus to move to Seal (emblem). - Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support as nom. As I said above, I think (emblem) pretty well covers the topic without becoming too obscure to be a fitting article name disambiguator. I also think it's a better fit than (device) or (impression). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The word "emblem" alludes to both the die and the impression. This is an improvement over "impression" which ignores the die. "Seal (impression)" should become a redirect to "Seal (emblem)". --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The present title makes me think of a comedian doing an impression of a marine mammal. The proposed title is clearer and, apparently, more correct as well. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The proposed title is better than the current one for reasons given by Jc3s5h. — Kpalion(talk) 10:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. After looking into the dictionary.com, I see that a general word would be "symbol", not "emblem". Therefore I suggest the move to seal (symbol). Timurite (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- My reason for the move was because the old title, Seal (device), was not specific enough: Seal (mechanical) is a devise (and a poor title, BTW, too). I fail to see why "emblem" covers the die while "impression" not. As for the move without discussion, last time I edited, this was a wiki, isn't it? If you are not happy, just put forth your opinion, no need to point fingers, as if I did something outrageous. Timurite (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com can be useful as a quick reference, but it is not the most reliable source and certainly has little bearing on this discussion. As to 'putting forth our opinions', that is precisely what has been done. You don't have to get defensive just because some other editors thought the move was hasty. We could have requested that it be moved back, but we didn't. I don't disagree that it should have been moved, just where it got moved to. Do you have a specific reason for objecting to Seal (emblem)? I don't see how Seal (symbol) works any better than Seal (emblem). An emblem (coming from Middle English, from Latin emblēma, inlaid or mosaic work) is a design that is representative of someone or something, whereas a symbol (coming from Middle English, from Latin symbolum, from Greek sýmbolon, sign) is a sign (which may be visual, written, or immaterial) representing something else. A symbol need not be an emblem, just anything - anything - that represents something else. I think symbol is too broad a disambiguator. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)