Talk:Seal (emblem)

message: 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)
thread_title: Seal History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request For Administrator Decision on Reinsertion of My External Link

message: "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)
thread_title:  Deleting the following 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Bearing arms'?  

message: Could somebody please add how the word "signet" is pronounced? It would be most helpful. 14:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  bulla and lead 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I suggest to repeat a survey, with multiple-choice, rather than binary, poll:
# - emblem (title: seal (emblem))
# - symbol (title: seal (symbol))
# - authentication (title:seal (authentication))
 
*My choices: #3 authentication - first choice, #2 (symbol) - second choice. Timurite (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple-choice survey

message: From the "Signet rings" section: "In Latin America, it is also traditional for the descendants of the old criollo aristocratic families to wear signet rings in the Spanish tradition. [Italics mine]" There needs to be a credible citation for this claim, as I can certainly attest that this is not a common usage and has not been since my grandfather's time (he was born in 1847).75.21.111.206 (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted it as challenged and uncited content. me_and 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criollo" signet point of order 

message: I am kind-of surprised that the first introduction section DOES NOT explain, that we are talking about:
1.--The Seal (device), and 
2.--The Seal (authentication); the resultant Picture, the "Seal" is the sanctioned Authentication
The Seal-(device) is simply the means that was used to make the Authentication. And, however, not all seals were just for authentication. The first cylinder seals were probably also an art form... (there are even wonderful examples of picasso-esque styles, throughout all timeperiods, even back into the 3rd and 4th millennium BC).
So, why not choose a name that attempts to explain the dual usage?..... Seal (authentication and device)
The Seal (emblem) NAME, shows the King-ly, or state-sponsorship Usage, starting probably in the 3rd millennium BC., post cylinder seals, and impression seals; (even the Ancient Egypt cartouche should be discussed as the usage, of the Seal (emblem)).) ------Mmcannis (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand the previous post, nor what specifically what the complain is with the current lead. In any case, I oppose changing the name because authentication is not the right word. Authentication refers to the act that someone performed in which the person decided that a document was authentic and created permanent visual evidence of the authentication, such as signing the document and/or creating a seal impression on the document. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I just looked at Emblem and :Category:Symbols. So, I think the name is better than what I thought. But the whole article is about devices. I assume there could be a good list put in some place... (Minoan seal-stones would be someplace in the list-?)(the alternative article name could be: Seal (emblem & device), and I see that Seal (insignia) is what can be produced by these "seal (emblem)" devices----Mmcannis (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of your terminology is inappropriate for this article. A seal impression may indicate purely authentication, as in those states that allow a notary to sign and seal a document without adding any notarial certificate. It may inicate agreement with the terms of a document, as in the private seal impression of a person on a land deed. A seal impression may indicate, loosely, "ownership" of the ideas expressed in a document, but does not necessarily indicate ownership of the physical document. For example, Mmcannis could probably go into an antique shop and become the physical owner of a sealed document that he/she has no relationship to at all, except for physical ownership. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just quibbling. The lead clearly is inadequate & poorly-written, though the rest of the article seems a reasonable start. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''[[Seal (authentication and device)]]'''''

message: I am interested to know about security and legal considerations for seals, i.e. how difficult they are to "forge", extent of verification procedures actually used, laws regarding use of someone else's seal, joint use of a seal, verification in court, etc.  In particular, I'm interested in a comparison with signatures (pros/cons). Ken6en (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: I have requested a quotation] because while Jenkinson might say that impressions in wax are the most common, I doubt the context of that statement indicates the claim applies to modern Western seals. Also, there are a wide variety of emblems impressed on media in the modern world that might or might not be considered seals. I suspect that the most common Western seals are made with ink on paper, and the next most common are embossed on paper. Of course, the sheer volume of modern commerce probably causes whatever is considered a seal in the modern Western context to vastly outnumber all pre-modern seal impressions. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Jenkinson (and all the other literature I'm aware of) is basically talking about "historic" seals, i.e. up to about the mid C19, which I have to admit is also my mindset. I've reworded slightly and added a sentence at the end of the paragraph which I hope deals with the issue. GrindtXX (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the revisions look good to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Western tradition seals made in wax?

message: I have concluded this article uses American English, based on the addition of the word "watercolor" in this edit from 2005. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This article uses American English

message: I recently found on academia this extremely interesting article. Unfortunately it is written in German. I frankly didn't understand everything but it seemed to me that it should be metioned here. Someone with good German knowledge should exploit the article: https://www.academia.edu/8334985/Das_alteste_Papstsiegel_Ursprung_und_Aussage_eines_Bildmotivs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.77.51 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: German article

message: Please add link to electric/gas/water meter seals article. Jidanni (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Meter seal is a redirect to Security seal, which is already listed under "See also". I (for one) would have no objection to that link being replaced by a brief mention integrated into the body of the article, if you want to be bold. GrindtXX (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meter seal link 

message: Cocket is merely a dicdef for a particular kind of seal. BD2412 T 21:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per norm. 2001:8003:9008:1301:4DDA:7F55:44D5:1957 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The current title, Seal (emblem), conjures up an image of some graphics, not of a physical imprint or tool. An unsuspecting reader would look here for a Presidential Seal of Turkey, not a signet ring. I have read the discussions above, but 10+ years seems to be a sufficient time for consensus to change, so let's try again. Few proposals along the lines previously suggested: Seal (mark) (similar to Seal (authentication), as the purpose of seal is to add a mark), Seal (tool and imprint), Seal (die and mark). Викидим (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly agree this needs revisiting: "emblem" is a really bad disambiguator. Part of the problem is that we're really trying to encompass three different concepts: (a) the physical implement (tool, matrix); (b) the impression; and (c) the graphic design (emblem), which – as in your Presidential Seal of Turkey example – may not even exist in a "physical" manifestation. Having said that, I'm not terribly happy with your "tool and imprint" suggestion, or any similar "X and Y", because they look a bit clunky, and will just attract further attempts to streamline them. Personally, I quite like Seal (authentication), because, broadly speaking, authentication is the primary purpose of any seal (whether matrix, impression or emblem). I also wonder – slightly counter-intuitively – about reverting to Seal (device), because the word "device" is itself ambiguous: in colloquial English it means a tool or implement, but in heraldry (and therefore sigillography) it means a symbol or emblem. GrindtXX (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your "device" idea: Oxford  dictionary lists also "a ... method, or trick with a particular aim", so it covers the authentication part, too (in a very broad and thus cheeky way, definitely, but then nobody says we can have WP:NOFUN here). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two weeks without opposing opinions, initiating a move below using yours (and mine) arguments. --Викидим (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No luck this time, too. So good luck to the next guy who will try in 2034. Викидим (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name (yet again) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seal (emblem) →  – The current title, Seal (emblem), conjures up an image of some graphics, not of a physical imprint or tool (which are the most important meanings here). An unsuspecting reader would look here for a Presidential Seal of Turkey, not a signet ring. We are really trying to encompass three different closely related concepts: (a) the physical implement (tool, matrix, die); (b) the impression; and (c) the graphic design (emblem), which may not even exist in a "physical" manifestation. Reverting name to Seal (device) will work, because the word "device" is itself ambiguous: in colloquial English it means a tool or implement, but in heraldry (and therefore sigillography) it means a symbol or emblem. One more meaning, "a method, or trick with a particular aim" covers the purpose of the seal: authentication. The last informal proposal to move (Talk:Seal (emblem)#Name (yet again)) was unopposed, but due to previous discussions (Talk:Seal (emblem)#Recent move, Talk:Seal (emblem)#Requested move) I am initiating a potentially contested move. Викидим (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost certainly not. People commonly come across lots of legal documents (contracts, deeds, identifications, affidavits, etc.) which have to be sealed. Besides, there's already a lot of pages on Wikipedia which link to "Seal (device)" - that is, to this meaning. Those links would all be misdirected. Walrasiad (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We better create a separate article for "Seal (device)". There are also a lot of pages on Wikipedia which link to "Seal (emblem)". 2001:8003:9100:2C01:6DD5:204E:A88A:90D8 (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Dear colleague, we are discussing a particular move proposal here, and I would love to understand your arguments better. In particular, (1) Do you have a better new name for the stamp/imprint/authentication/emblem combination? (2) Do you think that the current "(emblem)" disambiguation is adequate? Викидим (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  "device" is a very bad name, so this article cannot move there. :wikt:en:device clearly shows that this is not a disambiguator that is specific to the use found in this article. Thus the disambiguator is ambiguous, and should not be used per our own article naming standards WP:AT / WP:PRECISE, since it is not precise enough to identify the topic of the article. This is a device used for provenance, identification and authentication, and is impressed. So something along those lines might be better.  -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The funny thing is etymologically, the verb "to seal" for mechanically sealing something is actually derived from this seal device for impressing.  How about "Seal (stamping device)"?  "Seal (stamp)" has unfortunate postal connotations. Perhaps go for another verb,  like "Seal (mark)" or "Seal (sign)"?  Meh. Don't really like them either.   Walrasiad (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's face it: there is no perfect choice offered (and none will be forthcoming) due to the nature of the problem (three things in one article). IMHO, this is not a good reason to choose even worse solutions, like (1) keeping the current utterly confusing name that pretty much ignores the article content (mostly about material aspects of the topic), or (2) splitting the article into three, which will simplify the naming (except for the "seal that is used to make an imprint", but even this will get easier), but will force a lot of unnecessary duplication. I was not as much requesting a particular new name as asking to replace the particularly bad old name with something that is better (which is pretty much any option suggested on this page throughout the years). Arguments of the type "renaming into X is bad, because ..." are currently used to essentially keep the current title, when, notably, nobody is trying to argue for it. That's why I repeat my suggestion to evaluate a hypothetical X not on its standalone merits, but in comparison with "Seal (emblem)". Let's not consider this a quest for a perfect name, but just as an attempt to improve the text. It would be therefore great if arguments against the move would include a brief statement on the current title being better than the proposed one(s), or at least similar in the level of confusion generated. Викидим (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 January 2024 

message: The redirect 璽 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Rusalkii (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:璽]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]