This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would like so explain that these flags are not my own ideas, they are the banner of the official arms as granted by the college of arms to the respective settlements in 1927, c.1974 and 1857 respectively. I have simply, faithfully produced a digital version. The college of arms may be viewed in person but the site Heraldry Wiki is produced by associates of several arms boards across the world who faithfully list the arms. A banner of arms flag, to be correct, must include all the heraldic imagery as listed in the correct heraldic caption - again, these are found on Heraldry Wiki as well as the town councils of many of these boroughs - and I have adhered to this. Sometimes these arms are difficult to find on the internet, as these days some councils have adopted non-armorial logos, but the arms are still formally current unless rescinded by the CoA. The flags themselves, that I have digitally created, are faithful representations of the arms of the settlements, I hope you can understand and will restore them to the page. Some settlements do indeed lack arms, I would not produce a banner of my own creation if this were the case, but these three settlements do have arms. The remaining cities (Bangor and Dunfermline) also have arms and I plan to digitally remaster these into banners shortly.
Kind regards,
Thomas McBride (TMcB23) TMcB23 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
First, you would have to secure an exemption for the Heraldry Wiki from the general policy on wikis (at wikipedia talk:Reliable sources). I'm afraid I have to say that I'm dubious: I live in Milton Keynes and I have never ever seen that flag. (The flag that the Council does use is not remotely close, it looks like the logo shown at the top left of its web page). The Council's formal coat of arms is as shown on the face of its bid for city status: it includes the oak tree with six acorns as you have done but (a) with various supporters and (b) no background stripes. So anything different would need an exceptionally reliable source. Which, as policy WP:USERGENERATED stands, is a test that all wikis fail to meet.
IMO, the only way to have any of those flags in the meantime is, in each and every case, to cite each Council's own web page or directly from the College of Arms. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC) revised to add College of Arms --21:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @John Maynard Friedman. WP:OR is clear on this, "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." I too question these additions and I don't think they should be part of this page without a reliable source being cited. If, as you claim, @TMcB23, these have been granted by the College of Arms, then it should be possible to find something published, either on a council website as @John Maynard Friedman suggests, or elsewhere. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @John and @Sam. I'd go as far as to say the flags are the least relevant item in the table and be removed. If the pictures weren't there the flags would help add some colour, but as they are not official flags in some cases there would be gaps and I fail to see what they bring to the list. It was inevitable after the new cities announcement that there would be 'improvements', and there have been good ones, but this less so. I also need to mention the new list article on Roman cities in Britain by @TMcB23 which appears to be a duplicate of a list at article Caer but with additional entries and has been added as a link in the first paragraph of the History section, but I will report it to him directly on his page. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. We also need to consider the issue of copyright. The 1974 ones are almost certainly still in copyright. If we assume that the designer of the 1927 ones lived another 50 years, their copyright extends to 2047. But I don't know about "corporate copyright" rules, which may be different.
All in all, I strongly question whether the flags column has any worthwhile informative value and would support deleting it completely. (I don't think that MOS:FLAGS applies strictly but it should inform the debate. So I will start a new topic later today. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all,
It's your call as clearly more seasoned Wikipedarians than I, whether or not the inclusion of flags on the city page is appropriate. Personally, I think it lightens the page, makes it more interesting to the reader and it certainly brings me joy, but it's your call.
Nevertheless, the flags themselves have been produced in good faith - I have spent many hours on these for the sake of the general public, particularly I think the younger generation to whom flags (banners of arms) are much more accessible digitally than the full arms themselves. While I may not be knowledgeable about Wikipedia, my blunder in not realising I couldn't site Heraldry Wiki being apparent, I am knowledgeable about the rules surrounding the College of Arms and the ability to display flags. All flags of UK towns and cities are rightfully taken from the arms granted by the CoA when they were granted to the town or city council, or historically the area in some way. Now, it is possible there is more than one correct flag for any given town, but the vast majority have one very clear arms. I am currently working to find reputable sources for these and a quick google proves fairly easy to find coats of arms painted on crests and prominent buildings in each of these cities that appear exactly as I have portrayed them - simply in banner form which is a far more user-friendly way of experiencing them on the internet. In real life, the arms are clearer, but online the flag (banner of arms) is clearer so I am simply modernising in a way that has been granted by the College of Arms (not personally to me, but simply to any city or town). The only reason I label them 'unofficial' is because the very specific colours used are not the modern pantone colours chosen, as years ago they were merely derived from heraldic tinctures and varied somewhat each time they were painted (see quote below). I hope you can understand all my work has been done in good faith and you may well make a grown man cry if you try to suggest my efforts are completely worthless or fictional! I'm proud of our nation's coats of arms and I hope people may get to see them more, at the moment increasingly fewer local authorities are using them on their websites - but that doesn't mean they're not still valid and relevant!
Quotes from the College of Arms (www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/) - unfortunately their database is private and not digitally available to view to cite.
"What are the pantone numbers for the colours used in heraldry?
A. There are no fixed shades for heraldic colours. If the official description of a coat of arms gives its tinctures as Gules (red), Azure (blue) and Argent (white or silver) then, as long as the blue is not too light and the red not too orange, purple or pink, it is up to the artist to decide which particular shades they think are appropriate."
"...Flags should be made to an approximate ratio of 5 x 3 which is larger than, or more square than, ordinary flags to enable the Arms to be included. Shields may be added to existing flags of St George without altering their shape"
and from the Flag Institute, quoting the college of arms, these flags may be flown freely and within this order:
General Precedence: The Royal Standards 6 The Union Flag The national flag of England, Scotland, Wales, a Crown Dependency or a British Overseas Territory (within those countries, dependencies or territories) The White Ensign of the Royal Navy 7 The Ensign of the Royal Air Force 7 The Blue and Red Ensigns 7 The Civil Air Ensign7 The national flags of England, Scotland, Wales, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (when displayed elsewhere) The national flags of other nations (in English alphabetical order as shown on page 15) The United Nations Flag The Commonwealth Flag The European Union Flag The British Army Flag (Non-Ceremonial) Flags of counties and metropolitan cities Flags of other cities and towns Banners of Arms (both personal and corporate) House flags. TMcB23 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I've said what I can about the substance of this discussion. But I did want to add in reply to this that I totally recognise these were added in good faith and the time it must have taken. I too love flags, banners, and all things heraldry and there's nothing I love more than some colour too! So please don't take my comment (I can't speak for the others) as anything but enthusiasm for making the articles about these things the best that they can be. SamWilson989 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Sam - sometimes text can come across harsher than reality, I really appreciate the comment! TMcB23 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and just to add, the banner of arms is only the arms, not the full coat of arms, so the supporters are not included. The lack of background on the MK coat of arms you saw is probably simplification which is technically not allowed but passes in many situations. TMcB23 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@TMcB23: I recognise your good faith too and am too well aware of the time and effort involved in creating the images. So I hope you find a suitable place to publish them (but NB the copyright issue) but unfortunately it is not Wikipedia. By the way, the article Banner of arms article is very thin so if we haven't totally discouraged you, it could do with some care and feeding from your expert hand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your response.
I had been convinced that the banner of arms was the de jure flag of any city unless otherwise stated - simply from having seen the vast numbers of cities (particularly in Europe) for which this is the case, many of which are in the banner of arms article. I expect at one point or another many of these flags (or similar) have been produced and flown, but I totally understand that, for the majority of them, they are not in regular use. However, my intention was never to claim their prominent usage - I'm coming predominantly from a background of an interest in coats of arms (heraldry) rather than flags themselves. If I was better at graphic design, I would have illustrated the coats of arms but this is a little beyond my capabilities because it's generally 3D!
I have a couple of proposals - firstly, that flags could remain with very clear explanation that they are banner of arms not independent flags - secondly - on the cities page the flags are replaced by the coats of arms but on the flags pages the banner of arms remain clearly labelled as such, perhaps even renaming the page since many flags (several not produced by myself) fall under the same category and the pages would be very bare without them - thirdly - failing these three - an entirely new page is created 'Armorial of Cities and towns in the United Kingdom', or similar, listing the coats of arms and banner of arms form both in a table.
I would just like to add that I do believe people would fly these banners of arms as flags if they knew the history but they haven't been created for lack of people to do so. Saying that, I'm aware Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for any such notion. Many cities are currently trying to have competitions for new flag creations - which are often not very helpful as only a tiny percentage of the population actually even know it's happening - and most of the people are unaware that the city has a coat of arms and is allowed by law to fly the arms banner of it. My partial aim in creating these banners of arms was to try to get across that the College of Arms is the only lawful flag provider in the UK - not the Flag Institute. The Flag Institute is a nice organisation but seems partially intent on creating entirely new flags for everywhere. Some of these are fantastic (Coventry is an excellent example), but it's also a shame that some of the really old flags are being 'lost' - in fact they never cease to become current unless rescinded formally. The Flag Institute also creates flags of villages (which historically would never have had a flag, flying the banner of arms of their squire or landlord etc) which is all well and good but I felt that Wikipedia should be displaying a breadth of history, modern and ancient, to teach people a bit more about where they come from (such as the Ripon Horn, or the ancient arms of Portsmouth taken from a crusade, or the literal wells in the City of Wells. Anyway, I'll stop droning on and get back to my actual work - ta ra. TMcB23 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
(I have just emailed the College of Arms to find out more about this topic) TMcB23 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The College of Arms has replied explaining that there are no official flags for any towns or cities in the UK! It is not legal for the public to fly the flags of any borough (including places such as Durham and the City of London). However, the CoA confirms that the banner of arms is the legal, correct way to display these flags - but is only official with regards to the governing body associated with it (so even the City of London isn't actually the flag, it's the flag of the City of London Council). Flags produced by the Flag Institute are not officiated yet by the College of Arms but are legally allowed to be flown by the public. However, there are plans to change this and make an official register soon, they are just requiring funding to make it a reality. Therefore, the banner of arms flags can be shown online and listed as 'settlement borough council banner of arms flag' but never just 'settlement flag'. Soon these arms banners mixed with Flag Institute flags may become legal for settlements but it hasn't happened yet. With regards to Wikipedia, I believe the flags can all stay but must be labelled accordingly (to the city, town, borough or parish council they were given to. The designs are not copyrighted, so may be reproduced online, but may not be flown anywhere except on government official buildings. Hope this helps - the reply from the York Herald at the College of Arms was very informative. TMcB23 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the 1940s map?
In particular, what is the significance of the set of places that had city status before WW2 as contrasted with the current set? Without any explanation, it seems like an attempted distinction between someone's definition of 'proper' cities and 'new' cities, (of course without describing the two classes as such), but in that case the choice of the 1940s seems extremely arbitrary to me and therefore the distinction based on it too vague to be worth noting on Wikipedia. This is as opposed to, say, mapping those cities that comprised the entire list in one of the two periods of over 300 years in which apparently no new cities were created in England or Wales - or even the 15-year gap between 1977 and 1992... Adam Dent (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it is a waste of time, it was added by a non-registered editor and no reason given. I think it should have it's own page and be a series of maps showing city development over the ages instead. The Equalizer (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it's an apparently arbitrary distinction. I support removing it and I like @The Equalizer's proposal for a series of maps (or something where the cities are coloured based on date added?) SamWilson989 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes a good call - in fact a recent editor has used different colour pins for the new cities so a legend could be used for different eras such as
The 20+ pre-reformation cities
The Henry VIII cities and Derry
Everything after 1835
Or could be instead arranged by award, either through direct monarch, or competition
@Adam Dent, I have got rid of that section altogether and on @SamWilson989 suggestions created a combined chronological map instead. Let me know how it looks. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Much better. Now for your next trick, make it a GIF that populates the map in order of award of status. "Five minute job" :-)
More seriously but more credibly a five minute fix, The six cities where the Lord Mayor or Lord Provost has the right to the style The Right Honourable are UNDERLINED needs changing because on Chrome at least, every name is underlined (because it is a hyperlink). Use bold (or italic) instead? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Per above, I have boldly changed the annotation of cities with Rt Hon from underlined to italic. I tried bold, it doesn't work if we want these cities to stand out, but it is better if we want to understate?. Revert at will if not liked. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it works. And I'm a big fan of WP:BOLD. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks very good. Thank you. SamWilson989 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks really good (the new map!) - just one thing to add - the colours (except the blue for the new cities) are not massively distinct from each other. Perhaps make the pins for post-Victorian cities magenta? TMcB23 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
And then the cities in made in the Reformation + Derry to Red. Because the yellow and green are not distinctive from a distance. TMcB23 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@TMcB23 - could I ask you to look at the map from another browser and computer(s), as the lack of contrast could be due to differences in the rendering engines or physical screen characteristics. Also the pin colours chosen are primary ones (RGB) which should be polar opposites, along with a contrasting bright colour (yellow). However if you look at the guidelines at Help:Using colours and particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Diagrams and maps#Colors, that will advise further on what alternatives there are.
Much of the discussion immediately above is actually about the main map, not the 1940s map (I think!) I had the impression that we concluded that the 1940s map is a waste of space, that it chooses an arbitrary date to promote a particuluar POV, but I see no record of a consensus to that effect. So I propose formally that it be deleted. Straw poll follows: --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The choice of the period 1937–51 is not arbitrary. The current extent of the United Kingdom only goes back to the partition of Ireland in 1922. In the century since, the longest period without changes to cities or lord mayoralties has been 1937–51. (The second- and third-longest periods without changes have both been in the 21st century.)
So I can assuage User:Adam Dent's fears that this is an attempt at a POV definition of ‘proper’ cities. I also don't understand why he would be fine with mapping a 15-year period but not a 14-year period.
Ideally, this should be but one of a series of historic maps, to be kept in this article or a separate article. Maps of earlier situations would, however, need to use the borders as they then stood. Replacing them with a colour-coded map of the UK within its present borders would be anachronistic. A map of the situation in the United Kingdom at any point between 1801 and 1922, for example, would need to use the 1801–1922 borders of the United Kingdom. 2A02:2121:288:23D:987C:C9F5:717E:254F (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Having an extra map covering a single snapshot of time risks confusing readers as the table is a full list. The original map with the coloured dots is a reasonable way to summarise city development across the ages. I would advise on making additional JPEG/SVG historic maps and then they can be displayed as thumbnails with prose alongside so that they are distinct from the main map, but as mentioned should breakout into a new article. The basis of some of the periods on the main map are also in question, the ones I proposed in the earlier conversations above are aligned historically to the creations of dioceses which of course was a core factor in the creation of cities. All articles need to keep a certain simplicity as these are educating others but not a substitute for a book on the subject, to focus on a 14 or 15 year gap is not logical when there's been over a millennia of city development. The Equalizer (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I support The Equalizer's assessment. The only way I can think of to reconcile the perspectives would be to have a dynamic map in which pins appear (and disappear) using a sliding scale of date. An animated GIF would do it. But until then, I continue to believe strongly that the 1940 map should be deleted now. If a solution emerges, it can be considered at that time. -- John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The alternative to the 14-year gap is either even shorter gaps or a very small number of historic maps. It is perfectly normal for historic maps to be a snapshot of a certain point in history (e.g. "1900 map" or "1950 map" regardless of how long the 1900 or 1950 situation lasted; the current map doubles as a "1950 map"); the alternative is one map for every year a new city was created. If the historic maps should get their own article, there is no need for them to be distinct from the main map. No readers are going to be confused by a map labelled as "1940s map" showing the situation in the 1940s.
Time is a sufficient basis for the periods on the main map. Far too many cities have been created after the 1830s for it to make sense to give them all the same colour. 2A02:2121:288:23D:F850:763E:1BEA:31B (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Your editing is not helpful, do not revert changes as the page can be set to prevent changes where required. The article is about current cities, it is already going out of scope by trying to explain how the amount of cities grew over history and to further micro-categorise those is completely excessive. Please separate time periods out into a new article. The Equalizer (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Judeobasquelanguage, do you have any reliable sources that show Colchester was formerly a city and not just a prominent town. I checked on the Camulodunum page and couldn't find anything supporting it. Happy to be corrected. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
It is mentioned elsewhere, in at least Caer, Colchester and Roman cities in Britain. Read the Cities article for an understanding. Immemorial cities were not Roman ones but later diocese centres which had privileges given to them by British monarchs by the 12th century. The Equalizer (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The crucial piece is that it was not regarded by the authorities as a early medieval diocese city. History is littered with claimants of the status, but as per my link above that was not standardised until the 20th century. There are several Roman 'cities' via the links above that are not cities today. The Equalizer (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, Colchester has never been a city in the Modern (post time-immemorial) sense of the word. It had a status similar to a city during the Roman period but this was not carried forward into the Medieval period and, thus, it cannot be called a 'former city' as Rochester is correctly described as. If this were so, towns such as Cirencester and Monmouth would also be former cities, which they're not. TMcB23 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
That is untrue and i suggest you educate yourself on the history of the city, i even posted a source, silly person, it actually was and i posted sources of it being referred to as such, there was even plans to turn st. johns green church into a cathedral in the 1500s before it was turned down, there are courses you can take on colchester history in the wilson marriage centre if you want. --Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If you could avoid the personal abuse and WP:assume good faith, people might take you more seriously. The Colchester article says nothing about it being a city after the fall of the Roman empire. It does say (with source) "In 1189, Colchester was granted its first known royal charter by King Richard I (Richard the Lionheart), although the wording suggests that it was based on an earlier one. It granted Colchester's burgesses the right to elect bailiffs and a justice.[1]" So a town charter, not a city charter. Long after the mere presence of a CoE cathedral ceased to be the deciding factor for city status, Colchester made a bid for a cathedral: "In the early 20th century Colchester lobbied to be the seat for a new Church of Englanddiocese for Essex, to be split off from the existing Diocese of Rochester. The bid was unsuccessful, with county town Chelmsford forming the seat of the new diocese.[2]", so (a) it didn't happen and (b) was irrelevant anyway.
^A P Baggs; Beryl Board; Philip Crummy; Claude Dove; Shirley Durgan; N R Goose; R B Pugh; Pamela Studd; C C Thornton (1994). Janet Cooper; C R Elrington (eds.). "Modern Colchester: Introduction". A History of the County of Essex: Volume 9: The Borough of Colchester. Institute of Historical Research. Archived from the original on 2 November 2012. Retrieved 28 July 2011.
If any wp:reliable source says that Colchester was a city, let's see it (and put it in the Colchester article). Until then, this discussion is closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
it is put in the history of colchester article, thats where i got that source from Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTSOURCE for why another part of Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for content here. If there is a specific reference on that article that does back up the claim that Colchester was formerly a city and not just a prominent town then you can source that reference instead here. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Henry I later renewed this right in 1101, granting the "turrim and castelum" to Eudo in a charter.[1]
Under Eudo the town prospered,[2][1][3] reaching a population of 2,500 (putting it in the middle rank of English towns).[3] The town, and its turbulent history, was described sometime between 1087 and 1100[4] as:
"The city of Colchester is placed in the eastern part of Britain, a city near to a port, pleasantly situated, watered on every side by abundant springs, with a very healthy air, built with very strong walls; a city to be reckoned amongst the most eminent, had not time, fires, floods, incursions of pirates, and various strokes of misfortune obliterated all the monuments of the city."[1]
References
^ abcCite error: The named reference Denney, Patrick 2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Crummy, Philip 1997 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference BritSax was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Ashdown was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
so relevant citations do exist. The next problem is to evaluate their value in this context. Specifically, was the author talking about the Romano-British city or the Anglo-Norman settlement? The book would need checking. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC) revised --00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Judeobasquelanguage isn't editing the entries for any of the other then Roman cities that became formerly classed as modern cities, which tells me they aren't doing this for the greater benefit of the article. Also the column itself is the year each city was 'granted or confirmed', Roman cities were neither and were only categorised as such in more recent times. Either all ex-Roman cities are noted (not using prose in the same column as it is supposed to be sortable) or the article left alone as a single focused edit based only on a local interest is actually not productive. The Equalizer (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Ask anyone in colchester that studied its history and the town was demoted from city under henry the 8th, we have a former priory and st. Johns was initially planned to be a cathedral before it was taken out of use under henry VIII Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
So no doubt you can produce the citation that says that Henry demoted Colchester?
BTW, a priory (which is subordinate to an abbey) does not confer city status. "A plan" to make a parish church into a cathedral has no effect. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
bad faith comment, thats a very shitty way to talk to anyone. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that @John Maynard Friedman was being a bit glib with his question. I also think that we're not going to get anywhere on this if we start taking chunks out of each other.
In my opinion, we should start a table of sources with one column supporting the claim that Colchester has always been (or at least once was) a city, and another supporting the claim that Colchester has only ever been a town (until this year). Then we can start evaluating the strength of those sources. What do we all think? SamWilson989 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice link, but as I said before, the status of Roman settlements is not the formal definition used by modern government to determine historic cities, why does your link acknowledge it is a town then? The UK Cities article (please read it) explains this difference, where informally "city" is used for any large conurbation even from Roman times, and the formal term which until 1888 were cathedral locations given privileges from a monarch of England. Roman "cities" are even then acknowledged, there is prose and links to those already in both the main cities article as well as here. The Equalizer (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Should the "city flag" column be deleted?
Looking at the tables on my mobile, I came to the conclusion that they have too much clutter: it is very difficult to pick out the essential information from the background noise. The least useful column IMO is the 'city flag' (formally, per discussion above, the Banner of arms). Reading MOS:DECOR in general and MOS:FLAGS and MOS:IMAGES in particular, I have to ask how they earn their keep. Seriously, are there more than two or three people in the country who would use the city flag to home in on a specific city. I notice, for example, that {{infobox settlement}} and {{infobox legislature}} have parameters for the coat of arms but not the banner of arms ({{infobox UK place}} has neither). If the flag is not important enough for the target articles, what makes its presence essential here? Per the MOS articles above, images in articles are "to illustrate, not to decorate". To my eye, this is decoration. Others may disagree.
So this is to invite arguments pro and con here. Note that decisions are made by consensus, not by vote (but we can move to a straw poll after a few days of discussion). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I disagree, both because the city flags convey information and character and because mobile platforms are never a good a platform for detailed reading. On my desktop screen the table is not cluttered at all, could easily add another couple of columns. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Support. City flags are not dependent on or exclusive to city status. If necessary, readers should be redirected to an article of the flags if they so wish (should probably be linked at see also). There are already images of the settlements that should convey enough information, but this is a list article, where the main focus is listing the cities, flags can be found at (ideally) the city article or a flag list article, not this article. If flags are to remain they should be sourced (either on this article, the image's description, or a linked flag article) and accurately described (as a Banner of arms; and not an official design (if unsourced)). – DankJae (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Support, with counter proposal. As mentioned in the earlier discussion above, I don't think they add anything that is truly notable and doesn't really warrant their own column. And I too think it is important the information is limited in a table as browsing on a mobile device is a key use case for many websites. Having said that, I did also state it does help break up what are bland tables. Because the rows are now taller because of the pictures in the image column, @TMcB23 could find a happy medium, and could have a play with the formatting, and try to do what I've with the map links, make the flags smaller and fit them into an existing cell without expanding the rows. See below for a suggestion. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The idea shown above of the flag by the city name is a good one - I think it displays it well - I'm just not sure I would know how to go about editing it - I'm not particularly good with programming and digital language. Perhaps someone else knows how to do this succinctly? TMcB23 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
TMcB, it is just done by setting the size to 50 pixels wide. If visitors want to see it full screen, they can just click on it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
On my mobile (portrait or landscape), I see in the City column:
Ab-(upper half of flag)
er-(lower half of flag)
deen32
Scots:
Aiberdeen
The large majority of visitors to Wikipedia do so on mobile, so that is the format we must optimise for. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman, could you retry the view in your phone browser and report back on the formatting please? My small form factor iPhone 8 in either orientation does not wrap the text around the flag but keeps the placename whole, I have however added a tweak. @TMcB23, just take a copy of the talk page Wiki page source code, edit the table bit and test it in your sandbox before going with it. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, that puts the flag first and then gives Aberdeen as one word. [Android phone]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
We still haven't resolved the copyright status of the 20C flags? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you think these may come under fair use rationale? Plenty of flags, crests, shields etc on this site under those licences at a guess. The Equalizer (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Almost all the other uses are old. There are two criteria that are needed to justify "fair use" in US law (no such thing in UK law). It might be possible to argue that there is no reasonable alternative. But I think we would really struggle to argue that the copied material is critical to achieve an understanding of the topic. I suggest you read WP: COPYRIGHT to check that I'm not overstating the case. Football club badges are an obvious challenge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at some of the non-free content such as logos, and while they have been labelled fair use, they are only used on their specific page and justification given that it helps authenticate the content and convey the branding message. A low resolution rendering is also typically used. I think you could justify the flags usage as more than mere visual illustration as an education piece on a page on UK cities. Of course this assumes there is no copyright issue, Wikipedia:Non-free_content is then a key policy page, which isn't strongly for it, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance might be interpreted otherwise. But have a read and see what context is relayed. The Equalizer (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, as I recall, 'fair use' has been allowed in the infobox of the article directly about that topic but cannot be used in other articles that simply refer to it. In the first case, there is a credible argument that the image is essential to understanding but not in the latter. And this article is an example of the latter, I'm afraid. If anyone is unconvinced, I can ask the resident copyrights maven to confirm or deny. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
See my reply in the above section "self-published material" following an email from the College of Arms. I hope this helps shed some light on the situation, I believe the flags can rightfully remain but with corrected attribution.
Sorry, TMcB23, but I'm not sure it does. It leaves one question unanswered and adds a new one:
(a) Your report of the email doesn't address the copyright status (specifically, is the CoA making all banners at least CC BY-SA licenced to all comers for any use?) Obviously the copyright on pre-1927 banners has expired, the 1927 ones might have expired but the subsequent ones are almost certainly still in copyright. We can use them on the city (council) articles but not in list articles like this. As I understand it. Wikipedia:Copyrights has chapter and many verses but the sanctions for wp:copyvio are among the most serious. So we would need an explicit release in which they recognise that all wikipedia content is free to take and reuse for any purpose including commercial. So free to everyone everywhere for any purpose whatever. I doubt it.
(b) the email introduces a new stricture. It saying that we can't use the flags to represent the cities but only their councils. Is that a term of licence? In most cases, the city and council are co-terminous but there are quite a few where they are not.
Support - on Talk:Swansea#Flag, another user and I are discussing if Swansea does have it's own flag or not. The Swansea one could be made up, others used might well be as well. Not sure if the Bristol flag is right either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Summary and tentative conclusion
The flags are not the flags of the cities: they are either the banner of arms of the local authority, of the episcopal diocese, or something else. So the claim is a false one.
The 1974 banners are certainly still in copyright and the 1927 banners are almost certainly so. (The last member of the team that created them would have to have died before 1952; that is only a reasonable assumption if we also assume no member of the team was aged less than 60 when they did the work [2022-70=1952; 1952-1927=25; 60+25=85]. Recall that normal retirement age at the time was 60.) To continue to use them a WP:COPYVIO.
No evidence has been produced that any Council (let alone city) ever flies this flag but rather that they do not.
MOS:IMAGES says (in summary) that images are 'to illustrate not to decorate'. No-one has produced any evidence that they illustrate anything.
Conclusion: for the above reasons, the column should (for 1974 and 1927, must) be deleted. I will WP:BEBOLD and delete the whole column next week. Speak now or forever etc. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of politeness, I will give this a full seven days notice before proceeding. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Loginnigol:, the doc for template:ntsh says that its use is deprecated, advising Template:Number table sorting ({{nts}}) instead. I assume that you are more aware of the consequences of swapping it in the additions you have just made? (and any others already there). John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll replace it with nts then. Thx for the heads up —Loginnigol 19:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not an oversight per se, the city status article does actually mention it was granted then, although that section was added only in June this year as both that and this article are UK specific and so had little reference to overseas cities until last year after the competition announcement. Beckett's City Status bible however, to his credit has always stated it (pg 24, last paragraph for those who have access to it).
Clearly the grant has to be confirmed (which it had) - https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/20146/page/2632 and added to official lists (not done) and it appears there was some uncertainty of the status which is why they applied, luckily there's been no reorganisation of Gibraltar's government structure to lose the original grant - which is why we go to such lengths to tell editors not to add cities to the main table until when confirmed. So that said, I have also updated the article too. Regards The Equalizer (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)