This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Overseas Territories 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.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the
Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the
welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands 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
A fact from Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 July 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
I have just modified one external link on
Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands. 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.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
It looks like the article barely misses being a fivefold expansion, but the prose portion is adequately long. Was the person who turned the salt heaps into igloos a designer or an official? Sources appear to disagree on this. I can't check all sources but I didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism or any non-neutral content. I question whether we should use the newspaper sources here, though. I think ALT1 is more interesting but perhaps an even better hook could be made by stating that someone mistakenly turned the salt heaps into igloos? Regarding the images, are they coats of arms where the blazon is standardized and the actual depiction up to each artist? QPQ is done.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: as for the images, I think the left one is definitely a coat of arms with its standardized depiction. I'm unsure if that's the case for the badge on the right (could be faithful reproduction of the design at the time). How's this for another hook:
I don't think you need to specify doors. The reason why I am wondering about the images is because if there is a standardized depiction it is probably a non-free image which we can't put on the main page.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, that seems reasonable. Regarding the size issue, I think a further expansion might be in order. That only leaves my "designer or an official" question.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: did I not already explain in my first reply why this meets 5×? Here goes again: It passes 5× expansion, because the
July 21, 2019 version (i.e. version immediately before June 23 edit) is 437 characters. That means 2,185 characters are required (already met with 2,337). —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no good contemporaneous sourcing for the “igloo” canard.
Nothing about this until well after the fact, and it appears to have grown, as folklore so often does, by a string of added assumptions being raised first as a possibility, then taken as fact.
Qwirkle (
talk)
14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Purely as an example, and picked for accesibility, consider the National Geographic Vol. LXVI no. 3 Spepember 1934. Flags of the World. From page 377: “With its three-masted ship under full sail, two salt piles, three baskets, and a native in a red jacket, the badge of these islands forms an interesting composition. It is used on the Blue Ensign.”
Qwirkle (
talk)
21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It looks like various sources treat it differently. Per
this source, the "igloo" version comes from 1889 Admirality book and from a certain Jaumme. So the confusion did exist at some point, it seems.
Brandmeistertalk21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
PostWiki, it certainly does. Pre-wiki, a handful of sources, most of them remarkably lightweight. Looking at your particular claim here, a few points:
A commercial source advertising flags for sale which gives space to a self-published writer is not, in itself, a particularly strong cite. (From what I’ve read of it, the guy does seem to have some expertise, though.)
Referring to it as the “igloo” badge does not validate the fairytale this wiki page vectors, it may merely mean “the one some people claim look like igloos”. Note that it does not claim the Admiralty used this term.
Igloos were “in” in the 1870s, everybody knew what they looked like…or at least what they outta look like. A proper round dome, with an arched tunnel covering the entry point.
Cite after (modern) cite mentions “doors. Picture after picture shows a single black mark on oneof the salt piles, the right from the viewer’s point of view. So why do the stories have this wrong?
Different (modern) cites claim the supposed change was made either formally by the Admiralty or by some unspecified civil servant, or by an equally anonymous flagmaker. Does this suggest actual knowledge, or the usual variances of folklore?
Ummm, there isny any doubt that, since about 1983 a few people have believed a fairytale about unknown malfeasors in London - sometimes civil servants, sometimes flagmakers- changing a design from saltpiles into igloos. And there is no doubt at all, that, like most modern folktales, the internet has multiplied it. But before 1983 or so, no one seems to have spread the tale, at least not in writing, and this despite the fact that there were other speculations about it.
The fact that the flag dates back doesnt bring the stories about how it came to look like that back in the past with it.
Qwirkle (
talk)
19:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I suggest you write to the Turks and Caicos National Museum about that to settle the issue once and for all, especially since they reportedly have that igloo flag.
Brandmeistertalk19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Anf I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time.
Qwirkle (
talk)
16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
And I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time.
Qwirkle (
talk)
16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply