Talk:Lord Lyon King of Arms

message: Hey...I've added the John Brooke-Little article to the list for peer review.  Any of you contributors are welcome to make additions to the discussions. I know he's not a Scottish herald, but your input is valued.--Evadb 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Brooke-Little 

message: Unlike the English Kings of Arms, he does not need permission from the Earl Marshal.  I think this is doubly unclear.  "He" should be "Lord Lyon" (I think), but I have no idea what he does not need permission for (issue arms, render judgment, whatever). OtherDave (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission? 

message: What is the evidence that the "Court of Lord Lyon", insofar as that term refers to the office and functions of a UK government official, has designated this website as the Court's official website? It is unusual, if not unique, for an office whose authority derives from being part of and operated by government to use a ".com" domain name -- which usually denotes a privately owned, non-governmental, commercial site. Even if not unique, how do we know that this particular website (which is being cited as a reliable source for various allegations in Wikipedia articles) has been designated as the official online source of the Court's and/or Lord Lyon's communications? Do the courts or offices of the other kings-of-arms and official UK heralds have similar websites with similar domain names? Is this website funded from the Lord Lyon's governmental budget? How does it qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes? FactStraight (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We know this because we can do a domain proprietor check using a WHOIS service (see http://www.whois.com/whois/lyon-court.com).  As the registered registrant the Lyon Court would receive all correspondence related to the website and were this not their own they would publicise it as being such.  Besides, we also know it is their web site as a number of the Court's policy decision are first declared on this web site.  We know this too because the type of web sites you refer to, ones using a .gov.uk suffix, all point to this as the official website, e.g. http://www.stirling.gov.uk/services/law-and-licensing/police-courts-and-criminal-justice/courts/court-of-the-lord-lyon and http://www.scotlandspeoplehub.gov.uk/research/usage-of-coat-of-arms.html, the most obvious of which being the Scottish Courts Service website: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/more/other-courts-and-tribunals, it also being confirmed here: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/16/0/Court-Structure. Furthermore, this can be considered a reliable source as there is no greater authority on this subject than the Officer of State who determines heraldic policy.  That they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy can be seen in the fact that they will regularly revise material for accuracy, e.g. http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/217.182.html.  In addition, the source is archived, as a published source should be (See http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lyon-court.com/).  It therefore meets the criteria for being a reliable source. Editor8888 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website