Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Inescutcheon

I've just expanded Irish heraldry using the set of graphics from Swedish heraldry. The last of the divisions of the field is blazoned "Parted quarterly with a heart" which seems very strange to me. I'd expect a blazon to say Parted quarterly A B C D, charged with an inescutcheon E. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'd always say (Parted) Quarterly. I think the difference, if there is one, is that we're talking five tincture areas here - normally inescutcheons are shields in their own right. Like the arms of the diocese with their own arms in an inescutcheon. Just a guess though. Never seen it used, but I can appreciate there is a slight difference. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In Swedish, an inescutcheon is called a "heart shield" (see sv:Hjärtsköld). It's the same thing as an inescutcheon, just a linguistic difference in terminology. In English heraldry (and I suppose in Irish heraldry as well) it would be called quarterly with an inescutcheon, and inescutcheons in British heraldry were typically shields of pretense. In Swedish heraldry, the "quarterly with a heart" form frequently occurs in royal arms, where usually the quarters represent the bearer's domains while the "heart shield" is the bearer's own inherited arms. In short, the term "quarterly with a heart" was certainly never intended to be applied to this image on other pages. Maybe this is also a good example of the confusion that can arise when trying to translate heraldic terms from a language that is linguistically unrelated to Anglo-Norman. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I note it's numbered with the inescutcheon first. I'd never do that in Anglo-Norman (main first, inescutcheon second). Is that how it's done in Sweden, or an error? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I believe it is generally considered the "fifth quarter". I notice that in the legal description of the greater coat of arms of Sweden, the four quarters of huvudskölden (the head shield) are described before hjärtskölden (the heart shield). This seems the typical order from what others I can recall. I think if someone cares to rearrange the numbers so the inescutcheon is number 5, I would support that change. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I am not sure how to edit an svg file. -- Evertype·✆ 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited! :-) -- Evertype·✆ 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I don't think you are right about translation here. Yes, it is possible to parse the Swedish hjärtskölden as 'the heartshield'. But the translation isn't 'heartshield', any more than the translation of Irish lársciath is 'central shield', though that is how it can be parsed. The translation for both is 'inescutcheon' (which can itself be parsed as 'inshield'). -- Evertype·✆ 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is a rather strict literal translation, but still a valid one I think. I'm not particularly attached to heart shield or quarterly with a heart, but I think these help Anglophones better understand the Swedish terminology. For whatever that's worth. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It would help Anglophones learn Swedish, all right. But that's only because Swedish and English are related languages and heart and hjärt on the one hand and shield and skjöld on the other look alike. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the Hungarian for inescutcheon was *szívpajzs 'heart-shield' because that would be a literal translation of the German term Herzschild. That doesn't change the fact that the "word" heartshield is simply not used in English. (it does not occur in the OED). In fact, I just put these two words szív and pajzs together out of my dictionary, and indeed if you google that term you get Hungarian articles about the inescutcheon. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blazon article

Would it be true to say that blazon covers the whole grant of arms, including crest and supporters (and occasionally, motto)? The blazon article only mentions the shield. Oosoom ^Talk 08:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It covers the whole coat of arms, or more correctly achievement. I think you must have missed this bit of the article: "After the shield has been described, the accessories, including the crown/coronet (if any), helmet, torse, mantling, crest, and motto or war cry (if any), are described. These are followed by the supporter(s) and sometimes the compartment, when these are appropriate (i.e. in royal or national arms, or in the arms of a member of a peerage)." which basically covers everything else. Blazon is just a way of describing in words what one might draw, using specialist language to do so. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the place. I need my eyes examined! Oosoom ^Talk 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions to WP:BLAZON

Before hitting the most controversial issues, and before Wilhelm's talk page overflows, there are a couple of additions I think we should make, not about foreign blazons but English ones. There is one matter that is more controversial.

1. All descriptions, however basic, should have a source. (Non-negotiable since that's policy anyway)
2. Blazons should start with a capital letter.
3. For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman (not any other language) a reliable source is required. We can't have people making up blazons were the only sources are ones that simply describe arms in basic English.
4. The more complicated issue: images as sources. I think that they can be used as sources for basic descriptions. That's to say not any sort of Anglo-Norman. We're talking "it's red with a diagonal white stripe". WP:RS allows "audio, video, and multimedia materials" (assuming they fit the normal other criteria).

Although I'd prefer coats of arms in England and Wales (etc.) to have their blazons, we can't say "no simple description". (That relates as a base understanding to #4.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) All descriptions, however basic, should have a source. (Non-negotiable since that's policy anyway)

Can you explain (1)? If we have an image of an escutcheon charged with an escallop, we have to have a source to "describe" it as a scallop shell? If not, what do you mean? Because I think Wilhelm had said earlier that describing an image (in paraphrase) is no different from any other sort of captioning. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No. 4 would allow an image to be used as the source referred to in #1. Without it, you'd need a text source to back up what you said. If you say "The arms of X shows a white background with a red escallop", then you'd need a text source to say that (this could be in A-N). Everything must have a reliable source, according to policy. I can't see why descriptions would be any different, #4 permitting. (Were talking about real ones, by the way, and not the examples we use to explain concepts.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the image can be a source even if the image is not reproduced in the article? The citation points to the image on such-and-such a page in such-and-such a book or something? -- Evertype·✆ 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(2) Blazons should start with a capital letter.

Sounds fine. -- Evertype·✆ I'm all for it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(3) For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman (not any other language) a reliable source is required.

Why not any other language? Any blazon, regardless of the source blazon, needs a reliable source. A reliable source for a lot of Swedish blazons, for example, can be found here (in Swedish). Again as before, I don't think there is any higher burden of proof for Anglo-Norman blazons than any other. A reliable source is required for all, per WP:V. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Each grant of arms will have its formal official blazon, whether in A-N or in some other language. The "granted blazon" should always be sourced, and when not in A-N, should appear in a footnote. -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. It seems to me that this is a restatement of WP:V, which stands on its own without our help. I think it would be more appropriate to simply operate under the assumption that a reliable source will always be required for any blazon, and accordingly we should write our guide to explain to editors how to present this information. For this reason, I would move to strike point #3 as stated above and replace it with something more like, "For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman, a reliable source should be given in an inline reference. For other coats of arms, the original (foreign language) text of the blazon should be reproduced, and a reference to a reliable source provided, in a footnote." Again, WP:V has already established that these elements are necessary. What our editors need to know is how to present them in a way that is clear and consistent. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm good with that except I don't think a foreign blazon needs to be reproduced if there's a web link. What I was trying to achieve is the demand that to use an (I guess any) blazon you need a source that has a blazon (a representing the other debate over translation into A-N). I don't want people to use A-N and then source it to, say, a description in plain English, or an image. Something like "This source must contain the blazon that is being referenced." - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see the foreign blazon included in a footnote even if the source is a weblink. Sometimes links go down or go away. I'd think it better practice to recommend including it thus. -- Evertype·✆ 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it "preferable", perhaps. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, that's all a style guide is: a list of what is "preferable", usually with a point-by-point rationale of why these methods are preferred. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(4) Images can be used as sources for basic descriptions.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. We have samples already which are blazoned in Anglo-Norman (as at Irish heraldry. -- Evertype·✆ 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean for arms of actual people. You may well find an image, without text. I think it's enough, using common sense to make a basic text description. By "basic" in case it's confusing, I mean "red with a white horizontal stripe" sort-of-thing, plain English. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This, in my thinking, gets a little tricky the way this statement is worded. If you mean, "The arms of Bo Jonsson Grip are gold with a black griffin head," I disagree. There are several images, some of griffin heads and some of whole griffins, which have been attributed to Bo Jonsson Grip, and a reliable source is needed to state clearly that it is a griffin head that is intended. If you mean, "This shield shows a black griffin head," I agree (see the escallop comment above). This is the same as any other image caption. In the special case of very early arms, which were assumed rather than granted (and actually, Bo Jonsson Grip may qualify for this exception), an image must suffice but we still need a reliable source to verify the accuracy of the image. In the absence of a reliable source, Bo Jonsson (Grip) has suffered from the reliance on various images as sources and from multiple editor revisionism. We need to be able to tie blazons to a reliable (text) source whenever possible. I advocate the exception for early arms because in these cases it is not possible, as early arms predate consistent and reliable blazonry. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there I go with my Swedish examples again. Just pretend I used English examples. It really doesn't matter, for these specific examples in this context, that they are not English. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know wether it's just a product of your Swedish examples, but yes "We need to be able to tie blazons to a reliable (text) source whenever possible.". It's just I mean with English arms, blazon means Anglo-Norman. I'm not convinced that "The arms of ..." is any different. If you've got a source that says that they're the arms of someone, and the illustration clearly shows something one can describe in words, then I have no problem citing this something to an image. It could be wrong, but any source could be. I'd like to take an example. Before I did find a text source, Lord Snowdon's arms only had an illustration in a reliable source. I was helping someone with it. I advised them not to use an A-N blazon until they found a source, but in my opinion a description could use the image as a source. What do you think of this example? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So, there was a reliable source which only showed this image (or its equivalent) with a caption that simply stated "Arms of Lord Snowdon", and you wanted to use that as a source for adding to a Wikipedia article, "The arms of Lord Snowdon are Sable on a chevron argent, between in chief two fleurs-de-lis Or, and in base an eagle displayed Or, four pallets gules. Do I understand this correctly? I think this is an example of a case where I would advocate a text source to verify the validity of the blazon. In the 1960's blazons were considered definitive, and this is someone's coat of arms, not just a demo sample. If we were to reproduce the image in the article, and then say "this image shows..." that may be considered a work-around, but it does have the important distinction of saying "this image shows..." to indicate that this is a description of the sourced image, not a graphic representation of a sourced blazon. Not to confuse anyone, but I would simply apply this same standard across the board, including foreign language blazons. I understand what you mean about "any source could be [wrong]", but I hope you see what I mean about the problem of Bo Jonsson's arms (and I don't think this would be any different if it were an English coat similarly sourced from sketchy graphic sources). The current revision takes some license with what is stated in the given sources, making it sound like these are official blazons that are undoubted. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that (as an answer to "Do I understand this correctly". I meant essentially using it as a source for a plain English description, basically like an ALT text for the image. The Infobox has parameters like "Shield". I was thinking something like "Black, with a white chevron with four red vertical stripes, a golden eagle and two golden fleurs-de-lis" and citing this to the book with a ref like "Illustrated [author], title, .... ". I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying, but since you didn't understand me, maybe you'd like to say more? With A-N blazons I'd follow #3 meaning at least a reliable source, if not an official one. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think we do agree. Something that works like an ALT text in plain modern English to explain the contents of an image is permissible with nothing more than the image itself as its source, but something to establish the connection of a particular coat of arms to a particular person needs a reliable, if not official, source. The rest of what I was saying was about the arms of Bo Jonsson (Grip), which are not so clearly stated in reliable sources. A simple description of two attributed coats of arms (images) were later replaced with Anglo-Norman text and the wording of the surrounding text was edited to remove doubt, making it sound as if these were official blazons of unquestioned veracity. If one retraces the page history at Revision history of Bo Jonsson (Grip) and refers to the given sources, one would find that there is in fact significant room for doubt. One would also find that these blazons themselves are not actually supported by the sources, so an official blazon may not include some added text (such as "armed and langued gules" - early griffins, lions, etc. may have been shown armed gules by default without bothering to specify this in the blazon), or may include some lost text (such as "when it should be armed" - a phrase that has appeared in some later Swedish blazons). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking "as long as the image is a reliable source" and that "this source clearly attributes the arms to that particular person or organisation". I think you're saying that essentially images and text disagreed. Perhaps "but only where a reliable text source is not available". Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly the unavailability of source text for a blazon presents us a difficult situation, illustrated by the Bo Jonsson Grip example above. Sources seemed rather unsure of precisely what Bo Jonsson's arms were, and no reliable source has been found that attempts an actual blazon of his arms, though several sources include an image of a black griffin head on a (variously) white or gray shield; our description in the lead section of Bo Jonsson (Grip), by contrast, states two blazons with an apparent confidence unqualified by the given sources. That is the scenario I foresee playing out in many articles if we allow a specific coat of arms to be attributed to a specific person without a text source to back up our claims. Because of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, we must take into account not only the intentions of the editor adding the information, but what is also likely to be done by subsequent editors who come along and revise this information. Obviously we can't predict what all editors may do in all cases, but we should take into account situations that are predictable by how our own systems work. Honestly, though, I'm not quite sure what to do in the absence of a reliable text source to ensure that subsequent editors won't do what has been done to Bo Jonsson (Grip). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but if an image is going to be used as a source, at least that is a reliable source. Like this: "His arms were a griffin head on a white field.^[1]" If someone then finds another source with another image (but no text in either case) then they can explain there is uncertanity: "Some sources show his arms as a griffin head on a white field,^[1], whereas show a complete griffin on a gold field.^[2]" sort of thing. I don't think images is really the issue, but better understanding of how to arrange correctly contradicting sources. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited. I think that the A-N blazon should be got rid of and I don't know what the book actually says, but it should also be reworded so the refs more exactly back up what is said. the online source that works doesn't say anything about the golden one being the arms of the Grips. It says it might be related. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. The "noble" page does say that. I'll edit the page to make that clearer. The web source seems pretty clear on who used what. I can't really see how there's that much confusion. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A call for assistance

Someone recently added the shield of the arms of Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone to his biography article. I've moved it into the proper template for such information, but, without the proper knowledge of heraldry, I'm unable to fill out the details of the design. If someone has the time, could they please fill in the fields at Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone#Arms? Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a blazon but the picture vanished, so I reverted. —Tamfang (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. For the record, Infobox COA wide requires a notes= parameter to display the image, because it is, in fact, a navbox. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question.

I was going to ask the College of Arms about this, but their systems are rather formal. It stuck me recently, for all my heraldic knowledge, I am yet to answer two things. Firstly, does a grant of arms now enable familial relations to bear arms (properly cadenced), or do they have to apply also? Secondly, if you are the second son, and bear a crescent as a mark of cadency, and then your father dies, and your brother inherits, do your arms change? What if your brother also had a second son? Historically, it was just a case of making up something else, but now I'm not so sure. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see 3 questions:

1 Does a grant of arms now enable familial relations to bear arms (properly cadenced), or do they have to apply also?

Depends on the familial relation. If they are children, no. If they are anything else, then yes.

2 If you are the second son, and bear a crescent as a mark of cadency, and then your father dies, and your brother inherits, do your arms change?

Only the label is temporary and removed when the father passes away. The other marks of cadency are not removed. So in your case, the second son is "stuck" with the crescent. Interestingly, the second son's second son will have his father's crescent charged with a crescent.

3 What if your brother also had a second son?

He will have a label and a crescent. Once your brother removes the label, you and your second born nephew will have the same arms.

Of course, the above is going by English rules. The Scots, for example, have what I would consider a much more elaborate system of cadency.

(if I'm wrong, it won't be long before someone corrects me) --Kimon^talk 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help renaming an article

I am requesting anyone here to please take a look at Talk:Seal (impression)#Recent move, where a discussion is needed for an appropriate article name for this article which was recently moved without discussion. Currently, only one other editor seems to have noticed, and has nothing to offer but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am open to any reasonable suggestion, I would just like to see some discussion on that page. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page successfully moved per consensus

Thanks to all the editors who contributed! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible mergers

I'm thinking of requesting a merger of Bears in heraldry into Bear, in a #Heraldry section, and Wolves in heraldry into Gray Wolf (the target of the Wolf redirect) in similar fashion. I could see this becoming a pattern of orphaned X in heraldry articles at titles no one will search for, and I think the contents of these articles would be much more visible within the parent articles. I think Eagle (heraldry) and Lion (heraldry) are okay as is, because these two are widely known outside heraldic circles for their role in heraldry, and I would not propose merging any of the heraldic accessories (Crown (heraldry), Helmet (heraldry), Supporters (heraldry), etc.). These titles serve their purpose well enough. Any thoughts anyone? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay by me. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This came up a year ago, when these articles were created, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 3#Animals in heraldry. I think my comments then still apply. The fate of the template {{Heraldic creatures}} should also be considered as part of this issue. Dr pda (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Dr pda. I never would have found that in the archives. How would you suggest we proceed? I'm not sure using the section headings (that are in use at this point) at Charge (heraldry) would be very helpful, unless you want to break up Charge (heraldry) into a summary article. I was thinking a #Heraldry section at each animal's own page with appropriate links from their respective mentions at Charge (heraldry) would work well enough. Then we can fix the template to link to the #Heraldry sections as well. I could make that fix in a matter of minutes, once all the #Heraldry sections are in place. I would also suggest marking these sections with a tag: <!-- This section heading is the target of one or more redirects. Please do not rename this heading without checking 'What links here'. --> Thoughts? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland

Greetings! I've done a bit of work lately on Royal Standard of Scotland and have a question. On the discussion page the article is categorised as a "stub-class heraldry and vexillology article". Do the recent alterations made to the article warrant a change to this category? If not, then what else requires to be done? Any help appreciated.

Regards Endrick Shellycoat 17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual place for reassessment is WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment, although I've done this one straight off. In order to become B class, the next class up, there need to be more references, and those that there are need to be improved. All the necessary info is at WP:CITE, particularly WP:CITE#HOW. Ref #1 on Royal Standard of Scotland is formated well, it sets a good example. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to check the links. Endrick Shellycoat 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To bring my statement up-to-date, just mroe references for B - the existing ones are formmated well. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How now? Endrick Shellycoat 13:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

B-class now. If you want to take it further, I suggest a Good Article Nomination; you could ask for an A-class review here also, but GAN is probably the way forward. Fill in the couple of referencing holes; expand the scope (Rothsay/others; relevance to coats of arms of UK and arms in Scotland, and you'll pass, I should think. Unfortunately, I am too involved myself to review it for you. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help - much appreciated. Endrick Shellycoat 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Following recent changes, I've put the article forward for Good Article Nomination. Thanks again. Endrick Shellycoat 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the British Antarctic Territory

Good day to all. The article in question—a short one—describes the flag as "a white ensign with the Union Flag in the canton, defaced with the Coat of Arms of the British Antarctic Territory". I know it is accurate to describe most colonial flags as "a blue ensign defaced with x" (even, perhaps, with the redundancy of mentioning the Union Flag), but in this case I am not sure; can it be said to be a white ensign without the cross? Waltham, The Duke of 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. It is a white ensign. It's just not the White Ensign. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the white ensign without the cross. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand how it could be "a white ensign with the Union Flag in the canton, defaced etc." (lower-case and without redundant parts), Orange Tuesday, but then again why would it have to be an ensign, and not just a flag? The official description would help here. On the other hand, I am still reluctant to consider it a proper White Ensign without the cross. After all, it is an exceptional flag, almost certainly white to fit in with the icy whiteness of Antarctica; I am not sure there are other such examples that would allow us to draw parallels with the Blue Ensign as customarily used for colonial flags. Waltham, The Duke of 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the difference between the proper noun "White Ensign" (the flag used by the Royal Navy) and the common noun "white ensign" (a flag based on but not necessarily identical to the flag used by the Royal Navy.) If you need another example, look to the Australian White Ensign, which doesn't have the St. George's cross on it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean; indeed, if we treat it as a generic term, applying to a category of similar flags, it should be appropriate. I didn't know it to be such a term, but I have apparently reckoned without the Commonwealth. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

border gyronny

Need help on the following arms: ar. a chev. betw, three pewits sa. the whole within a border gyronny of eight or and of the second. as found for Russell of Charlton Park, bt in the general armory. I am note sure what is meant by a border gyronny, I have done the arms without border, see , and am aware of what a gyronny is i.e: . My thinking is that this may be another way of saying Compony bordure (i.e. eight compons or and of the second), am I correct? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the answer here rarebooks.nd.edu; and done: . Sorry for the bother. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have noticed that all but one of those examples of compony have more than eight pieces. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Chesshyre

Out of interest, how likely is it that he'll be knighted on retirement when he's 70 on 22 June 2010? Brooke-Little missed out on a knighthood despite having been a CVO for thirteen years on his own retirement (so that promotion to KCVO would have seemed timely). Both men will have been officers of arms for more or less forty years on retirement. Walker also missed out on a knighthood. On the other hand, Walter Verco was knighted on retirement from the junior position of Norroy and Ulster. It's not quite relevant, and time will tell anyway, but I'd be curious to know what anyone predicts.--128.86.175.170 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget he is also Genealogist of the Order, which may count in his favour in the award of a KCVO.--90.206.67.11 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Walter Verco

In case anybody's interested in putting it right, User:evadb irresponsibly created an article on Walter Verco which I've just discovered is virtually word-for-word identical with his obituary in the Telegraph. It astonishes me that anybody would think it appropriate essentially to copy and paste somebody else's original work and pass it off as an encyclopaedia article. It is immoral and illegal. If anybody wants to save Sir Walter's article, please do so before the present article is deleted.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Sir Anthony Wagner is also way too similar to here. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Another creation of User:evadb. She seems to have stopped editing on Wikipedia, but if she comes back I suggest it is impressed upon her that plagiarism is not helpful.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heraldry database

Hi! I've created heraldrydatabase.tk, which, in the least, could help you people to track down reliable sources for arms and/or blazons etc (self-explanatory). Of course, I shan't be adding any links to it, but I suggest you follow through to the original source anyway. It'll get steadily bigger in range in the future. 92.23.39.117 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blazon at Le Mesnil-le-Roi

The blazon.

Sorry if this is not the right place, I am not sure where to ask.

I am translating this article and it has a blazon, the text of which (in French) is:

d'azur à deux éperons d'or à l'antigue avec leurs sous-pied l'un sur l'autre, celui de la pointe contourné, les courroies aussi d'or entrelacées au cœur de l'écu, au chef d'argent à une salamandre de gueules accostée de deux fleurs de lys aussi d'or.

In English I have translated it:

"Azur with two golden spurs with their undersoles one against the other and a half turn about, the wheels also in gold, the ?courroies also of gold interlaced in the middle of the shield, at the silver (argent?) head a salamander of gueles(?) flanked by fleurs de lys also in gold."

Obviously heraldry uses its own language often based on French so I am hoping someone else could provide me with a better English description than this. The image is on the page. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Azur is better as Azure and of gueles as gules. Or is best kept as that if you're going for blazon (as are the previous two changes), gold's fine if you're going for a plaintext description. (Yes, I know.) My French isn't good enough for the rest. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think l'un sur l'autre means their soles are against each other; that's the normal language for in pale. I take avec to mean that the sous-pied, normally omitted, is included. —Tamfang (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A better translation (still not perfect) :

"Azur with two Or spurs with their undersoles one against the other and a half turn about, the one in base contourned, strap also Or interlaced in the middle of the shield, on a chief argent a salamander gules flanked by fleur-de-lis also Or."

(but my english isn't enough good to be sure). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: Azure, a spur with its undersole, buckle and strap, above a like [i.e. similar] spur contourny, their straps interlaced, all Or; and on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleurs-de-lis Or. —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say, my english isn't enough good. But your version seems correct too to me. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Azure two spurs fesswise contourny undersole straps one against the other intertwined in pale rowelled and buckled Or on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleur-de-lis Or. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Only the lower one is contourny. —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Changed to "Azure, two spurs fesswise lower one contourny undersole straps one against the other intertwined in pale rowelled and buckled Or, and on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleur-de-lis Or", and put into the standard French communal heraldry box. I'm currently in the process of trying to translate all the French communal heraldry into English, but it takes a while.... Haven't got to Yvelines yet (I'm working my way along the north coast first). David V Houston (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what term to use actually. Contourny is incorrect really, as it is applied to animals, and particularly lions. Also, there isn't really a presumed placement of a spur, so having one contourny does not specify the correct placement. Something to specify they are simply turned about from one another. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One could certainly say 'reversed' instead of 'contourny'. OTOH, I think the latter is perfectly understandable, even if not technically correct. Since, as you point out, the default position of the spurs is not 'obvious' we could blazon both explicitly: 'upper spur rowel to dexter, lower, rowel to sinister'. On further consideration, if I had had to guess the default orientation, I would likely have guessed the opposite of what the French blazon has... David V Houston (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Template: PD-US-flag

Please join the discussion at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Template: PD-US-flag. Thank you, Awg1010 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent you a few messages at the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Esox/Pike/Lucy/Ged naming issue

It seems that while lucy is the common English heraldic name for the fish commonly known as pike (a term which redirects to the Latin name, esox), ged is the common Scottish term for the same. We currently have an article for the ged (heraldry), though pike (fish) redirects to esox and there is not even a redirect for lucy (heraldry). Should there be a merger somewhere? Where should we point the links in the Heraldic creatures template? The template includes both terms lucy and ged. There aren't that many fish in heraldry. Should we just merge these articles into one comprehensive article on Fish in heraldry, to include the dolphin, the scallop, and information on the attitudes ascribed to fish? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging the content into Fish in heraldry seems like a good idea to me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Knighthoods for Garter and Clarenceux

I think that Garter and Clarenceux, who are about to retire, ought to get knighthoods. Who agrees?--128.86.174.243 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for guesswork and/or opinions. There is however, very little historical basis for gaining a knighthood at retirement, rather than at appointment. I doubt it's going to happen, frankly. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Wagner was appointed KCB on retirement from the office of Garter. Sir Conrad Swan was knighted in 1994, two years into his term of office as Garter. Sir Colin Cole was knighted five years into his term as Garter and appointed KCB on retirement. Sir George Bellew was appointed knight bachelor on becoming Garter, then appointed KCVO three years into his term and KCB on retirement. Sir Walter Verco, having served as Norroy and Ulster 1971-80, was appointed KCVO in 1981. Hubert Chesshyre, moreover, was appointed to his current honour, CVO, on his retirement from the office of Secretary of the Order of the Garter. It would therefore not seem to me in the least bit surprising, nor lacking in precedent, for Garter and Clarenceux likewise to be honoured around the time of their retirements.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

However, I do agree absolutely with Jarry1250 that this is not the place for pondering the honours which the Queen may or may not be pleased to confer upon Garter and Clarenceux. They will no doubt appear in the New Year or Birthday honours if they are going to appear at all, so let's wait and see what she decides.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course, right. I've been head-down writing biographies of long-dead Garters, which rather altered my perspective of this issue. (They were all knighted before, or on appointment to, Garter. This holds, I think, until after 1900.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm doing some research into this sort of thing, your (correct) examples seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule. Of the last Garters, Howard, Bellow, Wagner were knighted before or at Gartership, Cole and Swan during. One can only guess whether that trend will push knighthood until after gartership. Of course, there are many more appointments to get other than knighthood, but this is a first for Garter. As for Clarenceux, of the last six, two were knighted, both before appointment. As I said, each case is different, but it's not looking hopeful for them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we are of one mind, more or less. My point about the chronology of appointments, retirements, and honours was that in several recent cases an honour has been conferred on retirement, especially knighted Garters being appointed KCB on retirement. It may well not be looking hopeful. Garter at least has the satisfaction of having been Garter, whereas Clarenceux, an extremely distinguished officer of arms, missed out on the top job simply because he and Gwynn-Jones are the same age to within a few months. Had Chesshyre become Garter he would undoubtedly have been one of the best Garters of recent times. I'm going to update his article with his publications.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Castile-La Mancha

Help requested at Castile-La Mancha#Flag and Castile-La Mancha#Coat of arms. I've done my best to translate texts from Spanish statutes (originals are provided in footnotes), but I'm no heraldist, and there is a lot of specialized vocabulary here. Someone can undoubtedly improve what I wrote. The flag and coat of arms are visible on the page, so they can readily be used for reference. Ideally, what I wrote should be checked by someone with a good knowledge of heraldry and at least a reading knowledge of Spanish. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice Flag of India

I have nominated Flag of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wales

Hello, I wonder if anyone in this project could help resolve a dispute on Talk:Wales? I am reasonably certain that the image to the right is the coat of arms of Wales, being connected with Princes of Wales both pre- and post-Edwardian conquest. I have gathered what evidence I can find on the internet and presented it here and here, but few are as yet convinced. Have you access to any print sources that can confirm what is already clear from this file?

I am aware of the existence of the new Royal Badge of Wales, which incorporates these arms. However, it is unclear to me whether that's meant to be the device only of the National Assembly. Also, its unionist imagery has made it controversial amongst editors and re-inclusion in the page's infobox would likely lead to it being removed again. I'm sure a case can be made that this image is Wales's equivalent of the three lions of England and the lion rampant of Scotland. Thank you, Ham 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Emblem of France

I wonder who created this version of the French emblem, quite different from the one shown here and whether it was really used or not.--Carnby (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This site seems to have an explanation (url is blacklisted here, though): http://www. languedoc-france.info/06141215_arms.htm Gimmetrow 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So, this is the 1912 version by Jules-Clément Chaplain and this is the 1952 version by Robert Louis of the emblem?--Carnby (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read the languedoc page (assuming it can be trusted). It appears to say that the 1952 version is "a version of the existing design by Chaplain". This is a "variation on the same basic theme" - "the one on the right is still in use today". However, this looks more like what appears at an embassy. Gimmetrow 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's this???

I found this file on commons. If someone knew what's this, please write to me (I prefer answers in Polish) KamilkaŚ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a German or Slavic Hausmark, although it might be a goldsmith's mark or other craftsman's mark. Without more information about where it originated, it would be very difficult to track down. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Imho, it's not a mark but a trivet (as the name say) like this here commons:Category:Trivets. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Attitude (heraldry)

As a result of a question on Wiktionary, I've checked into the use of the term attitude to describe the posture of beasts and birds. The result: I don't find it used. Fox-Davies, Parker, and Elvin all call this position, and there are a few sources that call it posture, but I've not found any English language source that calls this quality attitude. I suggest we rename the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the favourite of Charles Boutell, and is used as required in "English Heraldry". There are also a few uses in "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" (A.C. Fox-Davies) but admittedly not much. There are many other more minor works using the term, but the multiple terms need to be addressed in the article. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Roll

Hi. Would anyone here like to flesh out the section on the article Anthony Roll about 16th century English warship flags? --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

There are a number of “missing” titles and relative duties in the nobility pages; I can only list a few:

• Guy (most commonly heard as “Guy of Gisbon”, the Robin HOOD character)
• Ensign (other than as a militry rank)
• Prince (other than son of a king/Queen; as used in Romeo and Juliet, for example- Appears to be roughly equal to a modern-day Mayor or possibly Governor)

It would be helpful to know what their station would have been. 174.25.99.225 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Guy (as in Gisbourne and Fawkes) is a name, not a title.

Ensign is primarily a kind of flag; the naval rank is a metonymy from this, I believe. Have you yet another sense in mind?

Prince in archaic usage can be any nobleman or head of state, without meaning a specific rank.

—Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove File:Coats of arms of None.svg

As per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Flag_of_none, this image is either WP:OR,a depreciated place holder or should only be used to indicate an error condition in a template and as such should be removed Gnevin (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrecognized heraldic ordinary

I have been trying to create a new category in Commons for a heraldic ordinary, but the issue here is that I do not know English name for it - if there's any, could be that it is not recognized as ordinary in English heraldry at all. I was suggested to ask the name here, and so far we have identified it to be called in Finnish pieli, in Swedish post and in French adextré or senestré depending on position. This ordinary is like chief, but on the side of shield instead of being on top, and it is visible e.g. in these: . Thanks in advance for any help available on this subject. --Care (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In SCA armory I think it's called a side; I haven't encountered it otherwise in any English-speaking source. —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have used this now for new category in Commons. --Care (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't they be parted per pale (wavy/unduly/etc) enhanced dexter/sinister? --Kimon^talk 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

enhanced means toward the chief; perhaps displaced to [side]. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cercelée & Cross moline

Are not Cercelée and Cross moline the same thing ? Can I propose WP:PM or did I miss something ? And if not, what is the difference ? (fyi we have just one category on Commons and one word in french). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed it was a matter of how far curled they were - moline, cercelée, recercelée. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean-shaven unicorn for Scotland

I am only 98% sure about this, but I think the unicorn in the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom ought to sport a beard. I have suddenly realised that all relevant images of the afore-linked article (such as this) lack said beard; one might suspect an erroneous depiction of the unicorn as a horse with a horn, but the tail disproves such a theory. Can anyone weigh in? Waltham, The Duke of 02:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

99% sure, after seeing a few off-site examples.

By the way, you may want to have a laugh with this. Waltham, The Duke of 06:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons discussion

Hi,

I start a discussion on Commons about moving all categories about tinctures. Could you give your point of view on Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry#Coats of arms by tinctures. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This link should work: commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry#Coats of arms by tinctures. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine

There are two files for the Flag of Ukraine, located at File:Ukraine flag.svg and File:Flag of Ukraine.svg. The latter displays in almost all locations on WP – I'm pretty sure that the latter is the correct flag – but the former is on display at Flag of Ukraine. I wanted to give someone with more insight and knowledge of WP:VEX a heads up. Happy editing. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they're equally right. I have no specialist knowledge about Ukraine, per se, but generally the only description is "blue" or "dark blue". The former actually closer to what the government uses (in this case), but as I say it's of little difference. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See my discoveries at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#State_flag_colors. Frankly, the Pantone colors are known to the government, but I just need to pry it out of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd fully support going with the official Pantone, provided the government does. Good research there. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, we can use http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx to get the Pantone shades. Now, I am trying to find out where I can get a copy of that document. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2935 C and Yellow 012 C are the official colors from the document "ДСТУ 4512:2006 - Державний прапор України. Загальні технічні умови - вперше." This was told to me by a Ukrainian Wikipedia, but I am still going to attempt to get this document. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Addington and Addington-Barker

Two curious new articles: Addington coat of arms, Addington-Barker coat of arms. They give "official" blazons in strikingly sloppy language, which do not entirely match the illustrations — and the A-B image has a royal crown! Their authors, User:Rachel Spencer-ward and User:Royal College of Arms (!), are also new to us. —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the silly citation. I think this should go for a WP:PROD or WP:AfD --Kimon^talk 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Hungary

In the article about the Siege of Belgrade it is inserted the following flag:

John Hunyadi

This is the modern flag of Hungary, which appeared after Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Shouldn't we replace it with something else (a medieval coat of arms)? (Umumu (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

{{flagicon|Hungary|1867}} User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This flag is from 1867 and the battle was in 1453... (Umumu (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

But it is used with the Kingdom, but perhaps to just go with no flag or the solution I provided. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question: how can I make the flag of Wallachia and the flag of Szekelys to have the same dimension? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_%C5%9Eelimb%C4%83r (Umumu (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Both images need to be the same dimensions when uploaded, so until the first flag becomes 1x2, it won't happen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no obligation to use flag icons in all infoboxes. In cases like this, when they are more confusing than helpful, it's better not to use them at all. See WP:MOSFLAG. I went ahead and removed the flag icons from Siege of Belgrade. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That works too. I wish MOSFLAG was around back when I first joined WP so I did not spend the first 2 years just making flag images :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

They're still useful, Zscout; only not everywhere. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Buenos Aires

Hi, I have a concern on the ratio of Flag of Buenos Aires. According to Buenos Aires City official site its flag ratio should be 9:14, but the depicted file is 3:5 instead. How can we get it changed? Thanks in advance, Mxcatania (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Vanbrugh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms vs Emblems

FYI, Xanderliptak (talk · contribs) has been moving around articles from "Coat of arms" to "Emblem" for many different countries. There seems to be some controversy on this, as many have been reverted. I expect that the ones that haven't been reverted haven't been noticed yet...

70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blazon

Could someone give me a hand with this? I'd like to include a blazon for the Coat of Arms of the town of Adelberg in Germany in its article. I have had a go at writing it myself but I'm not sure it's right!:

Blazon: parted per fess or and sable, above a boar, sable, toward sinister, beneath a dog, or, toward dexter

Thanks. ChrisRedstone (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Per fess or and sable, in chief a boar counter-courant and in base a dog courant, all counterchanged. —Tamfang (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Per fess, 1 or a boar counter-courant sable, 2 a dog courant or. —Tamfang (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd blazon it "Per fess Or and sable, a boar courant contourny and a dog courant counterchanged." You don't need or want the 'in chief' and 'in base' because that's the order you blazon them. You don't need 'all' counterchanged because you only have two items. David V Houston (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ChrisRedstone (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Hello everyone, I am sorry to interromp but I just need to ask an opinion and a favour to someone. My problem is that on the article Coat of arms of Yugoslavia, in the infobox, there is only place for one coat, but the country had two different coats in two different periods (as Kingdom 1918-WWII, and as Socialist Republic from WWII to 1992). Can someone help me to make the coats presentation more apropriate so that we avoid having one of the official national coats displayed well and the other only in the section "versions"... I did some attempts but I failed. An opinion would be also very much appreciated about if that particular infobox is good for using in cases of countries with that had several coats (well, in this case they were 2), and if not, which one is? Thanking in advance any help, I send the best regards to all participants of the project! :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me the entire article is about the Coat of arms of the FSR Yugoslavia. Make a new article about both arms, then make that a disambiguation page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that already existed, until one editor (fancier of the Socialist Yugoslavia) undid all without any consensus. See the page history [1] and how was before that editors intervention [2]. Since the articles already existed, should I better just restore them? (Many thanx for the help!) FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the pages as they were before the merge. Now each coat has its own article. FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One user is insistingly restoring the articles in the way he wants (ignoring as much as possible the royal period within the Yugoslavia). I reverted him but I suspect that he will revert me... Can someone please intervene to explain to this user why are some versions right or wrong, since he ignores completely all the comparable articles I have found and explained to him. His disruption needs to be stoped by someone from this project, because he just treats the article as battleground and doesn´t listen neither to me, neither to the other 3 editors... Thank you in advance, FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am watching the article now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tryed to correct it as you indicated but another editor keeps reverting to his version, despite oposition from all other intervenients... The user pushing his version, as excuse, acuses me of having some personal issues with him so, could someone from the project then please intervene and put the article right, or at least help to solve this? FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing national emblems for arms

It seems to be a common misconception that any national emblem is a coat fo arms, and I have begun correcting some articles that falsely label an emblem as a coat of arms. However, I have found this to be more difficult than I anticipated. One method of opposition tasks me with finding it in the national constitution where it calls the device specifically an "emblem", and until then the article must remain labeled a coat of arms. Or that coat of arms is a common enough mistake that it doesn't matter if it is technically wrong. Or that the article has been listed as a coat of arms for four or more years, so there is no need for change now that it has done fine so far. This is an encyclopedia, whether or not it is a common mistake is pointless, mistakes aren't to be included in encyclopedias period.

The two articles mainly at issue are Coat of arms of Eritrea and Coat of arms of the Comoros. Clearly, the Comoros device is not a coat of arms, and less clearly the Eritrea device is not. The Eritrea image is but one version, and another one may be found on an Eritrean embassy website at [3]. The camel either natural or white, the roundel either white or blue, the wreath and scroll either surrounding the roundel or upon it, is all a matter of artistic interpretation and it is not meant to be a coat of arms but a depiction that happens to be circular.

So, if anyone could assist by throwing in their opinion on Talk:Coat of arms of Eritrea and Talk:Coat of arms of the Comoros, and help accurately rename the articles, I would appreciate the assistance. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add a response here, mainly because the above would appear to be a gross misrepresentation. Currently, we have an arbitrary pattern of naming these articles "Coat of arms of X", unless the device has some definite name. These moves have been proposed, but no sources have been provided to evidence that the proposed titles are actually the names of these devices, which in effect makes them equally arbitrary. The way forward is to round up as many of these as we can, and determine their proper names, rather than arbitrarily assigning one. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a coat of arms is. There is no pattern, as some of these pages are titled as seal, coat of arms, national emblem, great seal, arms, emblem, royal arms and whatever else. How you divine form all of that that there is a pattern, and that pattern requires such devices to be called coats of arms escapes me. Since you do not understand the difference, let me use an analogy. Cats and dogs are similar. They both have fur, ears, tails and are kept as pets. I read all of the cat articles and see the term cat is used to describe them, and therefore I declare there is a pattern of using the term cat for animals have fur, ears, tails and are kept as pets. Now, some may argue that technically dogs and cats are different, but I say look at the cat articles and you will see the pattern is to call such things cats, and the term dog is being arbitrarily applied. So is what you are arguing.. You can not see the difference, yet continue to argue away anyways. It is a common misconception, though, as emblems, coats of arms and seals can be similar, and even overlap; yet are not inherently the same. The generic term is emblem, and that should be the name applied to all such devices unless another more accurate one is found to describe the device. Please, take the time to read up on Coat of arms and heraldry, and perhaps you will learn that there is a bit more to it than simply being some doodle. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree and many should be renamed. Wikipedia is, like you say, an encyclopaedia and should give the proper wording, regardless what the consitutions state. The Mexican emblem is mentioned in the constitution as Escudo, whereas it has no escudo (shield) whatsoever...So it is an emblem and should be labelled as such. In the text is can be stated that it is an emblem, but that the constitution, wrongly, states that it is a shield. Tht is the correct way to address it in my opinion.Knorrepoes (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Flying Flags in the United Kingdom: A guide to British flag protocol

Just to point out that the above document, published in March by the Flag Institute, contradicts some information on various Wikipedia pages about UK flags (most importantly about flag proportions). Could we please update and expand them with reference to the booklet? 188.221.240.150 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

vocabulary

I wonder whether anyone has ever made a corpus-based estimate of the size of the practical heraldic vocabulary. Of course the list of rare charges is unlimited, but one ought to be able to say, for example, "N words suffice to blazon four-fifths of the shields in Rietstap." —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New arms for the project

File:Coat of arms of the WikiProject Heraldry by Alexander Liptak.png

I have not been too fond of the arms for the WikiProject. I was doodling a bit, and came up with this. Yes, a noticeable violation of tincture, yet since this is a project intended to ultimately have any and all arms recorded, it is fitting that the arms of this project be noticed and questioned of. The various letters come from Roman, Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, which covers much of the area in which heraldry originated and spread. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

French new arms.

The french project choose new arms some months ago. Strange coincidence, he looks similar and it depict a W too (but in Hoefler Text font). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Mary of Hungary (request)

I've been editing the article about Mary of Austria (1505-1558) and I thought that having her coat of arms would be useful. There is a coat of arms at the Commons (File:Blason MariedeHongrie.svg), but I'd like to have a coat of arms identical to the one above Mary's tomb (see File:GrabMaria von Ungarn.jpg). According to the Women in heraldry article, this was indeed her coat of arms during her marriage, but there are no sources to confirm that she ever used it. On the other hand, the coat depicted above her tomb is (again, according to the Women in heraldry article) the coat she used as a widow. The image of her tomb is the only source we've got and a very reliable one as well. I'd appreciate if someone could create the coat of arms that resembles the one above her tomb (on a lozenge, with a cordeliere) or at least tell me how I can do it myself. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The SVG image is correct, and shows the same arms from the tomb image. While it would be more common to display the arms of a woman on a lozenge, it is not unheard of nor improper to have them on a shield and would be wasted time and effort for so meaningless a change. Also, the cords are not part of the armorial device but a courtesy to show that Mary was a widow, so the cords should not be included unless specifically pointing out that her husband has died before her. So the SVG image is fine and accurate. The coat of arms could be more complete, though, if it also displayed her crown, however the tomb image is cropped and her crown is not visible. I would have no issue drawing up something new if you could find or were aware of which crown she was entitled to. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. The problem is that I need the coat of arms for the section about her widowhood and that I need the coat of arms to be sourced (i.e. to avoid original resarch at all costs). I don't have any sources which describe her coat of arms except for the photograph and so I need a coat of arms that resembles the one in the photograph. I can't prove that she ever displayed her coat of arms on a shield. I don't insist on the cords but the arms will be used in the section about her widowhoow and should describe her as a widow. I know little about heraldry so I don't even know which types of heraldic crowns exist; Mary was queen of Hungary and Bohemia, so I guess she was entitled to the Holy Crown of Hungary and the Crown of Saint Wenceslas. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Though she was a queen, she was the queen consort and may not have been allowed the use of those crowns for her personal arms. I will look about and see if I can find another image of her tomb and see what crown is used, and then make a drawing for you. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png, not sure where you were wanting it in the article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the arms in Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary#Regency in Hungary and marriage proposals. Thanks once again. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help, Arms Being Deleted

Hi all, I'm hoping this is the right place to ask for assistance on this matter. I started producing arms for wikipedia about a year ago and have made a good number since then. Its been a lot of fun, and I think I've generally followed the rules and sourced my work carefully. However, lately I've found people attacking a few examples of the work (proposing it for deletion and whatnot). I think generally their arguments don't acknowledge the practices of heraldry in general and on WP in particular. (For example a few have claimed that my images are not "official". I suspect they mean that, while faithful to the blazon, they are not the original artist's work. Someone else has complained that the work is not original, that it is merely a compilation of svg elements mashed into an approximation. Are we not permitted to use elements of other arms as appropriate) Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but some expert advice on the below issues would be much appreciated. I don't want to step on toes, but this has become somewhat disheartening lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Cook#New_full-width_infobox

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Meekitjuk_Hanson_Arms.svg

My gallaries are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A1_Aardvark

Many thanks! A1 Aardvark (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)